The first informant or the complainant in proceedings seeking grant of anticipatory bail neither can be considered as necessary party nor a proper party and has no locus standy to be heard. It was held that the complaint party may hold a watching brief and may bring the relevant facts to the notice of the State Counsel and apart from that the complainant party has no right to be heard when particularly the State is duly represented.

There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which enables a third party to get himself impeded in the proceedings before the criminal court. The High court have only section 301, Criminal Procedure Code which enables the private parties to assist the prosecution and also submit written arguments with the leave of the court. According to Section 301 Crpc , such assistance is to be given at the enquiry,trial or appeal in criminal case.

The question that arises was whether private parties can be allowed to intervene in the anticipatory bail petition with a view to represent matters before the court, when there was no provision for intervention in the Criminal Procedure Code, by ' intervention ' it is understood that a party who is in position of facts may appear before the court as an intervener and make his submission on the matter in issue.

In such cases, such a party is shown as intervener in the proceedings before the Court. When a party can not be impleaded in a criminal proceedings,as held by the High Court, he can not be permitted to come in under the guise of an intervener.

But ,at the same time , bearing in mind ,the wholesale observations of the Supreme Court, the right of a party to represent matters before the court can't be whittled down in to start jacket formula of Locus standi,which was unknown to criminal jurisprudence. It was open to any party to make his representations in the bail proceedings pending in the High Court before the enquiry or trial starts.

Ref P.S Sarvamabhavandan vs S. Murugaiyam,1986,Cri LJ1540 at 1542,1543(Mad)