Bombay High Court
Tanmay Akhilesh Trivedi vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 16 September, 2025
1
appp1755.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO.1755/2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.639/2025
(Tanmay S/o Akhilesh Trivedi Vs. State of Maharashtra)
Applicant:- Anup S/o Mahesh Jaiswal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. P.R. Agrawal,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
Mr. P.S. Chawhan, Advocate to assist prosecution.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 16.9.2025.
Heard.
2. The application is filed by the applicant Anup S/o Mahesh
Jaiswal for grant of permission to assist the prosecution.
3. The bail application is filed by one of the accused namely
Tanmay S/o Akhilesh Trivedi.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant Anup has stated that in
the F.I.R. the name of this applicant was mentioned and the crime is
registered. Thereafter, in charge-sheet his name was deleted as the
conspiracy to implicate him is found during the investigation and
according to the applicant, he became victim as per the statement
made by co-accused to implicate him in said offence.
5. The applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Jagjeet Singh and others V/s. Ashish Mishra alias
Monu and another reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321. He has stated that
as per Section 3(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 he
is a 'victim' and as per para 19 of above-said judgment, this applicant
appp1755.2025.odt
Anup has right to assist the prosecution and hence, prayed to allow
him to assist the prosecution.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Tanmay has opposed
the application stating that applicant-Anup is not a victim. He has
remedy to file the proceedings for malicious prosecution. The
applicant has no right to file an appeal against the acquittal.
Therefore, he cannot be heard at the time of deciding the application
for bail. The learned Senior Advocate has relied on the observations
made in same judgment in case of Jagjeet Singh and others (supra) in
paragraph No.24.2 which reads as under:-
"24. ..... If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is
not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of
deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave
miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected
to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings
from afar, especially when they may have legitimate
grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver
justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses."
7. Relying on said observations, the learned Senior Advocate has
stated that the applicant Anup is not a complainant, the State is the
complainant. The statement is made that the M.D. Powder and gun
was planted to implicate him in the said offence, the charge-sheet is
not filed against him. As he cannot file an appeal against the
acquittal, he is not a victim. Hence, prayed to reject the application.
8. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
record.
9. As per Section 3(y) 'victim' is a person who has suffered any
loss or injury caused by any act or omission by any person and
includes guardian or legal heirs of such victim.
appp1755.2025.odt
10. The applicant-Anup has stated about his loss as he is the
aggrieved person. Section 338(2) of BNSS reads as follows:-
"Section 338(2) - If in any such case any private person
instructs his advocate to prosecute any person in any Court,
the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in
charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the
advocate so instructed shall act therein under the directions
of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and
may, with the permission of the Court, submit written
arguments after the evidence is closed in the case."
11. In this case before granting permission to assist to prosecution,
it is necessary to verify whether the applicant comes under the
definition of victim. No doubt, co-accused tried to implicate him in
the serious offence and crime is registered against him, he has a
grievance against this accused-Tanmay, however, he cannot file an
appeal against him on his acquittal in this case as per the observations
made in case of Jagjeet Singh and others (supra) as the
applicant-Anup has no right to be heard at the time of deciding bail
application.
12. It appears from charge sheet and statement of accused
conspiracy was there to implicate the applicant in said crime,
however, in said crime he is not the complainant. He has remedy to
prosecute the applicant by lodging another complaint but in this case,
the applicant cannot be treated as victim.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is rejected.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2025 18:31:10
