Bombay High Court
INDUBAI ANNA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the original complainant is a proper and necessary party and may be permitted to intervene as Respondent No. 2 in the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The Intervenor, Indubai Anna Patil, an 88‑year‑old complainant in an FIR alleging cheating by her brother and nephew, filed an interim application seeking permission to intervene in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2341 of 2023 filed by Arun Shankar Patil and others. The Applicants opposed the intervention, contending that the matter was civil in nature and that the Intervenor lacked locus standi. The State of Maharashtra did not object and suggested that the Intervenor’s presence would aid the Court. The Court examined whether a complainant could be a necessary party to anticipatory bail proceedings and held that she was a proper and necessary party. Consequently, the Court allowed the Intervenor to join as Respondent No. 2 and directed the Applicants to amend the bail application accordingly. The interim application was allowed in part and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the original complainant has locus standi to intervene in an anticipatory bail application
- Whether anticipatory bail proceedings are of a civil nature precluding intervention
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- intervention
- locus standi
- criminal procedure
- complainant
- amendment of pleadings
Judgment
1/3
901-IA-3742-2023 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3742 OF 2023
IN
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 2341 OF 2023
Indubai Anna Patil …........Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Arun Shankar Patil and Anr. ……….Applicants
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ….......Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware a/w Mr. Samarth Chavan and Mr. Shubham
SHANTANU Dhoble, for the Intervenor.
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, for Applicants.
Digitally signed by
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
Date: 2026.10.01
18:53:29 +0530
Mr. C. D. Mali, A,P,P, for the Respondent-State.
PSI, Mr. S. D. Bhilari, Karad Taluka Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware, learned Advocate for the
Intervenor, Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Applicants and
Mr. C. D. Mali, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent–State.
2. By the present Interim Application, the Intervenor
(Complainant), who is 88 years of age, seeks permission to intervene in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2341 of 2023.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/3
901-IA-3742-2023 (CR).DOC
3. Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Applicants in the
Anticipatory Bail Application, strongly opposes the present Intervention
Application on the ground that the subject matter is civil in nature and,
therefore, the Intervenor has no locus whatsoever to intervene or
participate in the present proceedings.
4. Mr. C. D. Mali, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent–State, submits
that he has no objection to the Intervenor being permitted to intervene in
the Anticipatory Bail Application. He further submits that the presence of
the Intervenor would assist the Court in the adjudication of the matter.
5. Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that the Intervenor, who was 85
years of age at the time of filing of the F.I.R., had lodged a complaint with
the police alleging that she had been cheated by none other than her own
brother and nephew.
6. It is astonishing that the Applicants have opposed the present
Intervention Application filed by the Intervenor, particularly in the light of
the allegations made in the F.I.R.
7. Be that as it may, the Intervenor, being the original Complainant
and presently 88 years of age, is a proper and necessary party to the
Anticipatory Bail Application. Though the Intervenor has sought permission
to intervene in the proceedings, having regard to the facts and
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/3
901-IA-3742-2023 (CR).DOC
circumstances of the case, permission is granted to the Intervenor to join
the proceedings as Respondent No. 2.
8. The Applicants are directed to implead the Intervenor as
Respondent No. 2 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2341 of 2023.
9. Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Applicants, is
directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title of
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2341 of 2023 to implead the Intervenor
as Respondent No. 2. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith.
10. In view of the above, the Interim Application is allowed in terms
of prayer clause (b) and stands disposed of accordingly.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…