(1)

901-appln-2244-2022 & anr..odt

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 : 24^th 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

(2)

901-appln-2244-2022 & anr..odt

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.

(3)

901-appln-2244-2022 & anr..odt

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 21^st 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 direct