1 Cri.Appln.No.917 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 917 OF 2011 Sudam Balasaheb Gholap and Ors. ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Subhash Jha i/by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2011 P.C. Matter not board. Taken up by way of production. Heard counsel for the original complainant in Criminal Application No. 2872 of 2011 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by way of present application. The applicant herein is original complainant. He sought by an application below Exh. 4 for permitting him to appear through his counsel to assist the public prosecutor for objecting the bail application. The very tenor of the application illustrates that the complainant/applicant desired to object the bail application on these 2 Cri.Appln.No.917 of 2011 aspects through Public Prosecutor. The law on the point is quite clear and well explained in R. Rathinam Versus State and another (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 391, Puran Vs. Rambilas and another (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 338. The law does not inhibit the complainant to participate in opposing of any action in criminal prosecution. In the scenario the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge declining intervention is set aside. The application moved by the applicant is allowed. He shall be assisting the public prosecutor in the said bail application No. 2872 of 2011 and is at liberty to tender notes of arguments. Application allowed in above terms. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)