IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2244 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.558 OF 2022 SUDHAKAR NARAYAN DEORE AND ANR. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS VARSHA NARENDRA DEORE AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2243 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2022 SUDHAKAR NARAYAN DEORE AND ANR. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS VARSHA NARENDRA DEORE AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS …

Mr. A. D. Sonar, Advocate for the Applicants.

Ms. V. S. Choudhari, APP for Respondents-State.

Mr. A. D. Gade, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in APPLN/2244/2022.

Mr. A. D. Ostawal a/w Mr. Mohit L. Deoda, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in APPLN/2243/2022.

…

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : 24th AUGUST, 2022.

PER COURT:-

1. These are applications filed by the management to intervene the applications filed by the applicants for the Anticipatory Bail. The management is not the complainant/the aggrieved person the victim.

2. The applicants are the Headmistress and assistant teacher in the school run by the applicant. An unfortunate incident of sexual assault on a girl child happened in the school. Another teacher allegedly did the sexual assault. A clerk in the school allegedly supplied the video of the alleged incident to applicant no. 1. It has been alleged against the applicants that they did not take action against the culprit teacher; therefore, they have committed a crime, and they were protecting the culprit. Based on the report of the school clerk, who has various grievances against the Headmistress, a crime has been registered.

3. The question has arisen whether the applicant has a locus to intervene or oppose the bail application.

4. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the applicants, asked the question of how the applicants are entitled to intervene in the anticipatory bail applications. However, he did not explain to the Court any law or case law that a third party is entitled to intervene in the anticipatory bail application. However, it appears that the applicants and the present management have serious disputes. The arguments of the learned counsel Mr. Sonar reveal that the management wanted to throw the applicants out. The legal remedies were available to the management to take action against the applicants, but instead, they have come here to oppose the applications in which the prosecution has made a statement that there is absolutely nothing against the applicants.

5. The offence has been registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Section 439 (1A) has been incorporated (by Act 22 of 2018) with effect from 21st April 2019}, stipulating that the presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub Section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376 AB or 376 DA or 376 DB of the Indian penal code.

6. The Bombay High Court in the case of Arjun Kishanrao Malge Vs. The State of Maharasthra in PIL No. 5 of 2021 by speaking to the minutes dated 90/04/2021 in CR. PIL No. 52021 in paragraph no. 17 in the middle, has observed thus;

“ We thus find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the petitioner that akin the to the offences which fall und the Indian Penal code as set out int sub- section (1A) of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with respect to the application for bail under the POSCO Act, the presence of informant or any person authorized by him shall be made obligatory at the time of hearing the application for bail.This would certainly be in consonance with the object of Section 40 of the POSCO Act read with Rule 4(13) and 4(15) of the POSCO Rules. To such extent, we also find ourselves in agreement with the directions of the Delhi High Court in its orders noted above”

7. In view of the above findings, the Bombay High Court has issued certain directions in paragraph no. 20, of its judgment as regards the notice of hearing of the bail applications under the POCSO Act. Direction (b) is relevant to th