( 1 ) THE petitioner, his father, mother and sister are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 498a/302/201/120b IPC. The wife of the petitioner succumbed to burn injuries on April 28, 1989. The father and the mother of the petitioner have been released on bail pursuant to orders made by Duggal, J. on October 4, 1989 in Cr. M. (M)1368/89. The sister of the petitioner was enlarged on bail pursuant to the orders of Additional Sessions Judge made on 17th October 1989. The bail application of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 4th January 1990. Therefore, the petitioner filed Cr. M. (Main) 161/90 seeking bail. The application of the petitioner came up for hearing on 25th January 1990 when notice was directed to be issued to the State for 8th February 1990. On 8th February 1990, it was directed that the record of the trial court be summoned and the case was adjourned to today.

( 2 ) THE present application (Cr. Misc. 309/90) was filed on February 19, 1990 by Sh. Darshan Singh Chhabra-father of the deceased Smt. Shalini, Manila Dakshata Samiti, Shakti Shalini, Saheli, Joint Women s Programme, National Federation of Indian Women and Janwadi Mahila Samiti seeking permission to intervene in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. (Main) 161/90 and make oral arguments in opposition to the application for grant of bail filed by the petitioner. The father of the deceased and the six women organisations referred to above are joint applicants of Cr. Misc. 309/90. The application is being seriously opposed on behalf of the petitioners as also the State.

( 3 ) THE question for determination is whether applicants have a right to intervene and be heard in opposition to the bail application.

( 4 ) MS. Rani Jethmalani, learned counsel for the applicants, in support of the application relies on two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first decision relied on is Arunachalam v. P. S. R. Sadhanantham, 1979 SCC (Cr.) 454. In the cited case the Supreme Court was considering the nature and scope of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held :- "the Supreme Court under Article 136 can entertain appeals against judgements of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of private parties also. Article 136 of the Constitution neither confers on any one the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court s jurisdiction. Where a judgement of acquittal by the High Court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not the State has invoked the Court s jurisdiction. " ms. Jethmalani submits that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the applicants have a right in law to intervene and make submissions in reply to the bail application. The Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the circumstance that the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate Court at the instance of a private party, has no relevance to the question of the powers of Supreme Court under Article 136. Arunachalam, the brother of the deceased had filed the appeal, before Supreme Court, against the judgement of High Court whereby all the accused had been acquitted. The State did not file any appeal. The Supreme Court said that appellate powers vested in Supreme Court under Article 136 is not to be confused with ordinary appellate powers exercised by appellate courts and Appellate Tribunals under specific Statutes. The Supreme Court opined that the appellate power under Article 136 is plenary and the Supreme Court has itself set the limits by permitting invocation of this power in very exceptional circumstances. The observations made by the Supreme Court while considering the nature are scope of power under Article 136, cannot be used in support of the contention that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document