High Court Restricts Complainant's Role in Bail Proceedings. The Bombay High Court rules that complainants can participate in bail hearings but cannot file independent affidavits, preserving the role of the investigating agency.

Case Note & Summary

Bombay High Court at Goa, Justice Bharat P. Deshpande dealt with two criminal writ petitions concerning the role of a complainant in anticipatory bail applications. The Court allowed the complainant to intervene, permitting oral arguments and written submissions, but restricted them from filing a reply affidavit with documents. This decision was made to prevent the complainant from conducting a parallel investigation, emphasizing that the primary responsibility for opposing bail rests with the investigating agency.

1. IntroductionThe judgment addresses the role of a complainant in anticipatory bail applications, especially concerning the extent of their participation.

2. BackgroundTwo petitions were filed by Vijay V. Chowgule and Pradip Mahatme challenging a trial court's order that allowed the complainant (Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd.) to file a reply affidavit in their anticipatory bail proceedings.

3. Petitioners' ArgumentsThe petitioners agreed to the complainant's intervention but objected to the filing of a reply affidavit. They argued that this would enable a parallel investigation, which is not permissible.

4. Respondent's ArgumentsThe complainant argued that they should be allowed to file a reply affidavit to bring suppressed material facts to the Court's attention, supporting their opposition to the bail applications.

5. Court's AnalysisJustice Deshpande clarified the distinction between a complainant and a victim under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court noted that while victims have broad participatory rights, these do not extend to filing independent affidavits by the complainant in bail proceedings.

6. ConclusionThe Court quashed the trial court's order allowing the complainant to file a reply affidavit, maintaining that such participation should be limited to oral arguments and written submissions. The ruling emphasized that the investigating agency's role should not be undermined.