Complainant Allowed To Contest Raos Bail Plea

Disagreeing with two earlier views taken by the court and overruling objections by Raos counsel, Justice S K Mahajan said that for reasons to follow later, he felt that RMM president Ravinder Kumar should be allowed to make a representation when Raos bail plea comes up for hearing on December 12.

Rao and co-accused, former Union minister Satish Sharma, are on interim bail granted by the court. Justice Mahajans brief order came after CBI counsel A K Dutta did not oppose Ravinder Kumars application. While stating that the RMM chief did not have a legal right to be heard in the bail petition, Dutta, nevertheless, admitted that he was no stranger to the proceedings and we have nothing against him.

Dutta further stated that the court had ample powers to hear anyone or to call upon anyone to assist it in a hearing.

Kumars counsel P N Lekhi had on Thursday accused the CBI of being hand in glove with the accused Rao and said that there was apprehension that the agency would not seriously oppose the former Prime Ministers a bail plea. While terming this stand of the applicant as premature Dutta however cited a Madras High Court judgement stating that the right of a party to represent facts cannot be whittled down in a straitjacket formula of locus standi which is unknown to criminal jurisprudence.

Dutta submitted before the court that Kumar could not claim any legal right under Section 301 CrPC to represent his case. However, in the present case, the CBI had no objection to the RMM assisting the prosecution, but within the framework of law.

CBI counsel added.

Earlier, replying to Lekhis arguments that Section 301 applied only to enquiries, appeals and trials and did not have a bearing on bail matters, senior counsel R K Anand, appearing for Rao, stated that all judicial proceedings, including a bail applications fell within the ambit of either enquiry or trial.

Anand also cited several judgements in support of his stand that granting of bail was considered a judicial act, as were all proceedings in a court where the judge applied his judicial mind.

Thus, bail hearing also would fall within the meaning of Section 301 and only a public prosecutor can be heard on this.

Anand also stated that the idea of incorporating Section 301 in the CrPC was to keep the conduct of the trial in the hands of a fair-minded prosecutor, whose aim would be to ensure a fair trial and not to secure a conviction. Prosecution in the hands of a private party would be reduced to settling of personal vendetta, he added.

However, asked by Justice Mahajan about what the court should do if there was an allegation of bias against the prosecution, Anand conceded that the court had unlimited powers to ask anyone to assist it.