Bombay High Court
ALI AKBAR JAFARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court allowed the interim application for intervention and disposed of it.
Summary
The High Court considered an interim application filed by an intervenor seeking to intervene in an anticipatory bail application where the intervenor's name appeared in the FIR against the accused. The intervenor argued that his participation was necessary as he was a complainant in a related matter and had previously appeared before the trial court. The accused objected, contending that the intervenor was neither a victim nor directly concerned with the crime and therefore could not file an intervention before the High Court. The court examined the record and noted the intervenor's prior involvement as a complainant and his presence before the trial court. Concluding that allowing the intervenor would not prejudice the accused, the court permitted the interim application and disposed of it.
Issues considered
- Whether an intervenor who is a complainant in a related matter can file an intervention application in an anticipatory bail proceeding
- Whether such intervention is permissible under criminal procedure law
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- intervention
- interim application
- criminal procedure
- High Court
- complainant
- trial court
Judgment
66-IA-967-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2026
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2026
Ali Akbar Jafari ...Applicant/s
Digitally signed
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.10.09
KILAJE 15:19:56
+0530
Mahibub Daudsab Shaikh … Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Shekhar Ingawale i/b. Mr. S.N.Biradar, Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor.
Mr. Ritesh Thobde (Through VC) a/w. Ms. Zubi Ansari, Applicant in ABA/
460/2026.
Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI – Ghule, Swargate Police Station present.
PSI – Mr. Avinash Dedage, Talegaon Dabhade Police Station present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/Intervenor, learned APP and
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the intervenor submits that he had filed intervention
application in Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the applicant. Applicant’s
name was reflected in the FIR which was filed against the respondent. Hence,
requested to allow the application.
3. Learned counsel for respondent (accused) strongly objected to allow the
application on the ground that the applicant is neither victim nor concerned
1
66-IA-967-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
with the present crime. Though he was heard before the trial Court it does not
mean he can file Intervention Application before this Court. At the most he
can assist the learned APP and requested to reject the application.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. It appears from record that the
intervenor was complainant in other matter along with first informant. He was
heard before the Trial Court in the present Anticipatory Bail Application as
intervenor. Considering this fact, hearing the intervenor could not call injustice
to the respondent (accused) and I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Interim Application is allowed and disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.