( 1 ) THIS petition for grant of bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) has been filed by Anil Kumar Malik. During the pendency of the bail petition an application being Cr. M. 508/93 has been filed on behalf of the complainant Mrs. Kusum Malik for impleading her in the array of respondents. The aforesaid application has been strongly opposed on behalf of the petitioner. It has, therefore, become necessary to decide the question; whether applicant has a right to intervene and be heard in opposition to the petition for bail.

( 2 ) FIRST Information Report in the present case has been registered against the petitioner under sections 376/384/506/34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of the complainant Mrs. Kusum Malik. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to one 0m Prakash Malik, who happens to be a counsin of the petitioner Anil Kumar Malik, in January, 1981. It is further stated in the complaint that before marriage the complainant wrote some letters to the petitioner and after her marrige with Om Prakash Malik had forgotton all about these letters written to Anil Kumar Malik. It is alleged that in May 1986 when there was no one else at the house of the complainant, the petitioner came to the house and showed her the letters and compelled her to submit to his lust under threat of showing these letters to her husband. It is also alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 50,000. 00 thrice to the petitioner out of fear of the threats being given to her. It is further alleged that the petitioner even brought some other persons along with him and made the complainant to submit herself to satisfy the lust of those persons and he continued black mailing her and raping her against her consent upto August 1992.

( 3 ) IT is further alleged that finally the complainant decided to tell her husband all these facts and on hearing these facts, her husband became unconscious and had to be taken to ahospital. Thereafter, the complainant decided to murder the petitioner and then to commit suicide but she was not successful. Finally the complainant lodged a report with the police against the petitioner on 10th January, 1993 and the First Information Report was registered against the petitioner.

( 4 ) MR. Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitoiner has strongly objected to give any hearing to the learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that the complainant has no right to be heard in a petition filed by an accused for his release on bail. Learned counsel, however, submitted that an aggrieved party can approach the High Court for cancellation of bail. He drew my attention to Sections 301 (2) and 302 of the Code and contended that the complainant party may bring facts to the notice of the State counsel and apart from that, the complainant party has got no right to be heard particularly when the State is duly represented. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1.)Kuldip Singh vs State of Haryana, 1980 Crl. L. J. 1159. 2.) Sarwarkumar vs State of Haryana, 1989 (2) Recent Crime Reporter 469. 3.) Indu Bala, Ajesh Kumar vs State, 1990 RLR 131. 4.) Praveen Malhotra vs State (Delhi Administration), 41 (1990) DLT418. 5) In Re: Rakhaan Ojha alias Rakhal Chandra Ojha, 1988 Crl. LJ. 278. and 6) Thakur Ram and others vs The State of bihar, AIR 1966 SC 91 1.

( 5 ) MR. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behlaf of the complainant, however, submitted that Sections 300 and 301 of the Code are applicable only when the case is under inqury, trial or appeal and the aforesaid provisions are not applicable to the proceedings before the High Court for grant of bail because High Court is not a court of original jurisdiction in criminal matters. Learned counsel also drew my attention to Section 198a of the Code and contended that in a case of an offence punishable under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code a Court