The main question posed in these cases is this: Can the de facto complainant or the aggrieved be heard or be impleaded in an application for anticipatory bail?

2. Petitioner filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as B.A.No. 778/2005 and B.A.779/2005 on the allegation that he apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence in view of the complaint filed by the Federal Bank against him under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioner pledged with the bank certain spurious gold ornaments in the Bank over a period of few years and playing deception on the Bank obtained lakhs of rupees from the three branches of Federal Bank on different dates. On noting the cheating, the Bank lodged a complaint before the respondent/police.

3. Petitions were filed by the Federal Bank to implead the Bank as respondent No.2 in the bail applications as criminal M.A. Nos. 2103 and 1864 of 2005 respectively. These were opposed by the petitioner.

4. Since the parties are same and the dispute is also similar in both applications, these cases are being disposed of by this common order.

5. Heard both sides and also the learned counsel appearing for the Federal