ssm 1 25-wp847.21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2021

Vikaram Mahadev Hinge

….Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

….Respondents.

Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar i/by Dr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner.

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 16^th MARCH, 2021.

P.C.:-

By the present Petition, the Petitioner, one of the victims out of

125 victims as of today, has impugned Order dated 16^th February, 2021,

thereby rejecting his Application for intervention in Bail Application No.126

of 2021 filed by accused Ravi Barku Gavali in CR No.435 of 2020 registered

with Agripada Police Station, Mumbai under Section 420 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Maharashtra

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999,

(for short, “the MPID Act”).

2

Heard Mr. Pilankar learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

Patil, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

3

It is the case of the Petitioner that, he invested Rs.51,50,000/-

with the firm of the accused. That, the accused returned Rs.30,50,000/-, to

the Petitioner, however did not repay an amount of approximately

1/5

ssm 2 25-wp847.21.doc

Rs.20,00,000/-. Accused Ravi Barku Gavali has filed Bail Application

No.126 of 2021 for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Greater Mumbai. The Petitioner being one of the victims, it is necessary for

the Trial Court to hear him in the matter before any Orders are passed in

the said Bail Application.

In this brief premise, the Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous

Application below Exh-3 in the said Bail Application No.126 of 2021 before

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge, by its Order dated 16^th February, 2021, was

pleased to reject the said Application by holding that, there are 125

investors in the present crime and if the Application of the Applicant

(present Petitioner) is allowed, the other persons may also approach the

said Court for seeking intervention. It is also observed that, the first

informant namely Mr. Imran Vartak is being represented by his Advocate

Shri. Khandagale and is prosecuting the said Application.

4

Mr. Pilankar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted

that, the Petitioner is a “victim” as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) and therefore, he

is entitled to represent himself to espouse his cause before the Trial Court.

In support of his contention, he relied on the two decisions of the Supreme

Court namely (i) Sundeep Kumar Bafana Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623 and (ii) Rekha Murarka Vs. State of West

2/5

ssm 3 25-wp847.21.doc

Bengal & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 474.

5

During the course of arguments, Mr. Pilankar, fairly submitted

that, if the Petitioner is granted an opportunity to assist the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the Trial Court, the Petitioner

will not pressurize the concerned Addl. P.P. appearing before the Trial Court,

to argue his case in a particular manner or fashion. That, the Petitioner will

assist the Court, if the Court directs so and calls upon him, as per the law

laid down by the Hon’

ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundeep Kumar

Bafana (Supra) and not otherwise. He therefore submitted that,

appropriate Orders in the interest of justice may be passed in the present

Petition.

6

The Hon’

ble Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in the

case of Sundeep Kumar Bafana (Supra), in paragraph No.32 has held as

under:-

“32.The upshot of this analysis is that no vested right is

granted to a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to

directly conduct a prosecution. So far as the Mag