The main legal point established is that there is no legal bar for hearing the de facto complainant in an application for anticipatory bail, and principles of natural justice should be adhered to.

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 Bank.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the various decisions and strongly contended that the Bank/de facto complainant has no right to get itself impleaded in the application for anticipatory bail and that it has no light even to be heard in these applications. No provision in the Code permits this. Further, in view of Section 301 Cr.P.C. only a Public Prosecutor can appear before this Court and contest the case, but a private individual or a complainant has no right to be heard in an anticipatory bail application. Reliance was placed upon Kuldip Singh v, State of Haryana 1980 Crl LJ 1159 and Indu Bala v. Delhi Administration 1991 Crl LJ 1774. In the latter decision, it was held as hereunder:

"Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate by itself any hearing to be given to the complainant party in a police case…………. The various provisions in the Code of the Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 417, 422, 493 & 494 bring out the importance of functions and duties of a Public Prosecutor, who is the sole authority to conduct the cases instituted by the police on behalf of the State. He is supposed to act independently and exercise his own discretion to see that justice is done in such cases."

7. Referring to the scope of Sec. 301 of Cr.P.C. it was also held in Indu Bala's case (supra) as hereunder:

"So, it is evident that a complainant can only assist the Public Prosecutor when the proceedings are being conducted at the stage of inquiry, trial or appeal. Such” a complainant can submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case but as far as application for grant of bail is concerned there is no provision made in the Code of Criminal Procedure that a complainant or a third party can intervene and make any submissions independently in opposing the application for grant of bail or anticipatory bail………..In view of the above discussion, I hold that counsel for the complainant has not right to be heard in these petitions. He can brief the State counsel and it is only the State counsel who can be heard in opposition to these applications seeking anticipatory bail."

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also cited P.S. Saravanabhavanandam v. S. Muragaiyyan, 1986 Cri. L.J. 1540, wherein a Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered the question whether a third party could pray for being impleaded in the proceedings before the Criminal Court. By making reference to S. 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court found that the same enables the private parties to assist the prosecution and also submit written arguments, with the leave of the Court. It was held that there is no provision for a third party to intervene in the anticipatory bail application with a view to rep