SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

SLP (Crl.) No. 4131 of 1998. D/d. 8.10.1999

Abhilasha and another - Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan and others - Respondents

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 225 - Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor - Petitioner claiming right to assist Public Prosecutor - Held, an informant cannot as of a right claim to pursue the trial in a case of murder, though he may assist the Public Prosecutor.

[Para 1]

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 437 and 439 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - Petitioners aggrieved by order granting bail - Held, Court cannot interfere with order of bail after a lapse of more than 1 year and 10 months - Therefore, SLP filed for cancellation of bail refused.

[Para 1]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Qamaruddin appearing for the accused persons and Mr Jain appearing for the State of Rajasthan. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that though in course of trial several illegalities are being committed, yet the Public Prosecutor is not taking appropriate steps and when the High Court was moved invoking jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court had dismissed the same on the ground of locus. According to the petitioners, who happened to be the wife and brother of the deceased, there will be a gross miscarriage of justice, if the informants, who are the most aggrieved persons are not permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor in conducting the trial. It has been held by this Court that an informant cannot, as of a right, claim to pursue the trial in a case of murder, though he may assist the Public Prosecutor. It is not possible for us to visualise as to whether, in the case in hand, any such assistance is, at all, required by the Public Prosecutor or not but we are sure that in the event certain materials are brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor which will unravel the truth, the Public Prosecutor will certainly take that into consideration and act according to law. The informants were aggrieved by the order granting bail which was granted on 8-1-1998; we are not inclined to interfere with that order of bail at this length of time after a lapse of more than one year and 10 months. We, therefore, refuse to entertain this SLP for cancellation of the bail, that was granted.

2. This SLP is disposed of accordingly.

SLP disposed of.