1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2320 of 2009 Mahendra v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr K.R. Lambat, Adv for applicant Ms Sharda Wandile, APP and Ms Kanchan Tejwani, Advocate to assist her for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 11th August 2009 1. Criminal Application No. 2584 of 2009 : Request to assist prosecution is opposed by Mr Lambat. Reliance is placed on Dr Sunil Puri v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 2866. It is no doubt true as held in the said ruling that first informant or complainant has no right of audience and cannot be allowed to orally address the Court. In present case, what is prayed for is permission to merely assist the prosecution and no opportunity to orally address the Court. Hence, application is allowed. Complainant-first informant is permitted to assist the prosecution. 2. Criminal Application No. 2320 of 2009 : Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 149/09 registered with Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Complainant Rajesh Vaidya, aged about 28 years, holding 2 educational qualification of M.Sc. B.Ed. lodged complaint with Police Station, Lakiadganj, Nagpur that applicant extracted Rs. 4,50,000/- from him under the guise that he would secure appointment for him of a Lecturer in Nutan Bharat Vidyalaya and Junior College, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur. Appointment letter was also issued by applicant purportedly signed on behalf of the said Institution. However, when the first informant went to join the post, appointment order was found to be bogus. 4. There is incriminating material collected by the Investigating Officer and it is prima facie seen that the applicant is involved in the crime inasmuch as he extracted huge money from complainant and issued bogus order of appointment to him. Investigating agency in such cases must be given free hand to unearth real culprits by going to the roots of crime. It would be possible only when custodial interrogation of the applicant is allowed. No sympathy can be shown to the applicant by granting him pre- arrest bail barely because he is a teacher and his educational qualification is somewhat on higher side. In the larger public interest, therefore, application will have to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Judge. hsj