IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition(st) No.13372 of 2025 Sana Talha Khan alias Sana Sirajuddin Mukadam

1403, Sosiyo Apartment Belverder Hill, Near Mazagaon Garden Mumbai 400010. … Petitioner V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra

2. Azeem Sirajuddin Mukadam Flat No.402 Yash Heights, Nesbit Road Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010. … Respondents.

Mr. M.A. Khan a/w. H.I. Advocate for the Petitioner.

Sirguroh, Ms. Mohsina Khan and Aasma Shah, Ms. Dipti Mehta Ms. Sangita E. Phad APP for the State.

Mr. Prashant Thombre a/w. Mr. Advocate for the Respondent Moinuddin Khan No.2.

Digitally signed by CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI DATE : 14th July 2025.

PANJWANI Date:

2025.07.30 +0530 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner-Accused No.1 and learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2-first informant and learned APP.

2. The issue involved in this petition is “about right of the first informant to address the Court orally by opposing the discharge application filed by the Petitioner”. The FIR came to be registered with Byculla Police Station in pursuance to directions given under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.. The charge-sheet came to be filed against the present Petitioner and others. There is an objection taken about respecting the process of law by the Petitioner. That is to say she has not complied with the conditions of anticipatory bail. This is a contentious issue. This needs to be addressed by the trial Court.

3. There is discharge application filed by the Petitioner. The first informant is already permitted by the trial Court to intervene in the proceedings. The first informant wants enlargement of such right and that is why he applied before the trial Magistrate and seeks liberty to oppose the discharge application.

4. The learned Magistrate as per the order dated 22^nd January 2025 allowed that application and granted audience to the first informant. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition.

5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner invited my attention to the observations in the impugned order and according to him the learned Judge has committed an error while applying the correct ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Murarka v/s. State of West Bengal ¹. He has read the observations for my perusal.

6. In addition to that he relied upon the following two judgments:

(i) State of Goa v/s. Rosario Ferrao2 (ii) Kishore Wadhwani v/s. State of Maharashtra3

7. Whereas according to learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, no interference is warranted and he relied upon the following two judgments:-

(i) Jagjeet Singh & ors. v/s. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & anr.4 (ii) Prakash Sheth v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr.5

8. According to him as per the 2009 amendment the scope on ‘rights to victim’ is widened and he intends to address the trial Court on certain aspects. Whereas, according to learned Advocate for the Petitioner the judgment in case of Jagjeet Singh is on the point of right of audience at the time of hearing of bail application and according to him the observations in Rekha Murarka are not considered in that case.

9. It is true as per old Section 24 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and new Section 18 of B.N.S.S., 2023 there is a provision for appointment of

1 Criminal Appeal No.1727 of 2019

2 Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2015 dt.22/10/2021

3 Criminal Writ Petition No.3438 of 2010

4 Criminal Appeal No.632/2022

5 Criminal Revision Application No.60/2022 dt. 6/12/2022.

a Public Prosecutor at High Court level, at the District level and the appointment of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is governed as per the provisions of old Section 25 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and new Section 19 of B.N.S.S., 2023. There should be qualification for appointment for 7 years practice as contemplated under old sub-section 7 of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. and new sub-section 7 of Section 18 of B.N.S.S., 2023. Whereas there is also provision for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor a