JUDGMENT 1. - On 16.1.96 we rejected the application reserving the reasons to be given later. We rejected the application observing as under "The main application is rejected as being not maintainable. Reasons will follow. It is made clear that all orders passed in the main application including the order dated 20.12.95 stand vacated. All other application filed therein also stand rejected and dismissed. It is further clarified that all interim orders passed on these applications also stand vacated." Accordingly, reasons are being given by us in the present order. 2. The petitioners, who are totally strangers to the case, have approached this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC) seeking cancellation of bail granted to non-petitioner Doctors who are accused in Crime No. 664/95 and 673/95, registered at Police Station, Sodala. The bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his order dated 7 12.95 and 8.12.95. 3. The petitioners are stated to be students L.L.B. 1st Year studying in the University Law Collage, Jaipur. They have filed the petition by way of public interest litigation, claiming themselves to be responsible citizens of the Welfare State and awakened members of the society. They feel aggrieved by the release of the accused on bail in cases, which in their opinion, have crossed all the limits of morality. The criminal matters relate to kidney transplantation by the Doctors at Jaipur. 4. At the out set, it may be stated that no legislation has been enacted or adopted by the State of Rajasthan regulating transplantation of human organs including kidney. Admittedly, the Transplantation of Human organs Act (Central Act No. 42 of 1994), enacted by the Parliament, is not applicable in the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel for the parties agree that provisions of the said Act are not relevant for finding out whether any offence has been committed by the Doctors under any provision of the said Act. Crime No. 664/95 and 673/95 were registered at Police Station, Sodala, initially under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, but subsequently, other offences punishable under Section 326, 328 and 307 IPC appear to have been added. The allegation against the accused/non-petitioners is that they transplanted kidney of certain persons in a private clinic and kidneys of certain persons were obtained for this purpose on making payments to them. The allegation against the accused/non-petitioners is that they transplanted kidney of certain persons in a private clinic and kidneys of certain persons were obtained for this purpose on making payments to them. We need not go into the facts of the cases in detail as we are of the opinion that we are not required to examine as to whether any offence under the Indian Penal Code has been committed by any of the accused non-petitioners or not. Suffice it to say that the non- petitioner Doctors were arrested in the case and thereafter released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide orders dated 7.12.95 and 8.12.95. The bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10 lacks and two sureties of Rs. 5 lacks each. The bail was subject to certain conditions narrated in the orders. 5. On 20.12.95, the petition seeking cancellation of bail filed by the petitioners was listed before the learned single Judge (B.J. Sethana J.) from defects side. The learned Judge passed the following order on that date at the back of the accused "Defects are waived. Ordinary copies of the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are ordered to be taken on record. Learned Government Advocate Shri Yadav has filed Misc. application in this application for cancellation of bail with a prayer to suspend the operation of the orders of granting bail passed by the leanred trial Court. The learned Government Advocate assures this Court to file certified copies of the orders passed by the trial Court before this Court within a fortnight from today. The main application for cancellation of bail is filed by the three petitioners, who are the citizens of this country. It is in the nature of a public interest litigation. This petition is filed against the order dated 7th December, 1995 passed by Shri Amar Singh Godara, Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2332 and 2333 of 1995 filed by the accused Dr. Basant Fadiya and Dr. Santosh @ Sunny and the order dated 8.12.95 passed by the same Judge in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2359, 2360, 2361 and 2362 of 1995 filed by accused Dr. Arun Phophlia and Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta, whereby the learned Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta, whereby the learned Judge has ordered to release all the accused on bail. Santosh @ Sunny and the order dated 8.12.95 passed by the same Judge in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2359, 2360, 2361 and 2362 of 1995 filed by accused Dr. Arun Phophlia and Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta, whereby the learned Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta, whereby the learned Judge has ordered to release all the accused on bail. The main petition was listed before this Court day before Yesterday i.e. on 18th December, 1995 and it was ordered to be placed today and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to keep all relevant papers of the cases present before this Court along with the certified copy of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the Investigating Officer was also directed to remain present along with the papers. Accordingly, Mr. B.S. Nathawat, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) is present before the Court. Today, learned Government Advocate Shri Yadav had also remained present but he was unable to obtain certified copy of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in both the above cases and, as stated earlier, he assures this Court to produce certified copies of the orders within a fortnight from today. Learned Government Advocate, Shri Yadav, has taken me through the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the above cases. If learned Sessions Judge in the above cases. If I make any observation at this stage then it may prejudice the case of the respondent accused. Therefore, I have refrained my self in making any observation, except to say that the learned Sessions Judge, while granting the bail, has over looked all the norms and proceeded on the wrong assumption and footing. Prima facie, it appears to me that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly unsustainable. It was not expected from none else but a very senior judicial officer of Raj. Higher Judicial Services cadre. At this stage, I may stated that Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Advocate, was in a way contemplating to put in appearance on behalf of the Doctors at this stage, but after some discussion, he stated that he will not be appearing in the matter and the Court may proceed to pass any order as he thinks fit. Higher Judicial Services cadre. At this stage, I may stated that Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Advocate, was in a way contemplating to put in appearance on behalf of the Doctors at this stage, but after some discussion, he stated that he will not be appearing in the matter and the Court may proceed to pass any order as he thinks fit. When a bail is granted by the trial Court then this Court is very slow in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in favour of the accused. But when this Court is fully satisfied that the order of granting bail is wholly unsustainable and not passed in accordance with the law then only this Court has to interfere with the same. As stated above, I have not assigned any reasons for entertaining this petition for cancellation of bail except stating that I am fully convinced that a very strong case for the interference by the hands of this Court is made out in the application for cancellation of bail. It will be open to the respondent accused to make out a case in their favour and this Court may even reject this application for cancellation of bail. I cannot prevent the respondent accused from that opportunity because the principles of natural justice demand that any order passed in favour of a party cannot be set aside without hearing him. I am not setting aside the same. But, at the same time, when I am fully convinced that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are, on the face of it, prima facie found to be unsustainable, then there is no option, for this Court but to suspend the operation of the order of granting bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the respondents accused. This type of orders are passed in rarest of rare cases and this is a case in which if I fail to pass this order then I will be failing in my duty. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this main petition is admitted and notice be issued to the respondents and on the application made by the learned Government Advocate, the execution and operation of the order dated 7.12.95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Shri Amar Singh Godara, in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2332 and 2333 of 1995 passed in favour of respondents accused Dr. Shri Amar Singh Godara, in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2332 and 2333 of 1995 passed in favour of respondents accused Dr. Basant Fadiya and Dr. Santosh Sunny releasing them on bail on the terms and conditions stated in the order and the order dated 8th Dec., 1995 passed by Shri Amar Singh Godara, learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2359, 2360, 2361 and 2362 of 1995 granting bail in favour of respondents accused Dr. Arun Phophliya and Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta on the terms and conditions stated in the order, are stayed. Meaning thereby, the Investigating Officer has to arrest all the accused forthwith. On their arrest, they will be produced before the learned Session Judge and thereafter they will be taken in judicial custody and thereafter, this matter will be placed at the top of the Board for final hearing after a week." 6. After passing of the above order, the accused/non-petitioners put their appearance before this Court through their counsel, on January 2, 1996 and on 2rd January, 1996 an application was moved on their behalf for alteration/modification in the order dated 20.12.95, with a further prayer to restrain the Investigating Officer from arresting the accused/non-petitioners. This application was listed in Court on 5.1.96 before Justice Y.R. Meena, as Justice B.J. Sethna was having his sitting at principal seat at Jodhpur. Mr. S.R. Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor sought time on that day and the matter was ordered to be listed on 8.1.96. On 8.1.96 the matter was listed before the regular bench presided by Justice RK. Tiwari. On that day, the matter was adjourned for 10.1.96. On 10.1.96 the matter was again listed bdfore Justice RK. Tiwari and arguments were heard on the preliminary objection about maintainability of the application filed by the accused for alteration/modification of the order dated 20.12.95. On 15.1.96, Justice RK. Tiwari directed that the entire matter be considered by a larger bench in view of some important questions raised at the bar and Registry was directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. There upon, the Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered to list the case before the present D.B. on 16.1.96, that is how the matter has been listed before us for final disposal. 7. Mr. There upon, the Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered to list the case before the present D.B. on 16.1.96, that is how the matter has been listed before us for final disposal. 7. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Doctors raised a preliminary objection and urged with vehemence that the petitioners here in have no locus- standi to initiate this litigation before this Court and as such, their application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Doctors by the Sessions Judge is liable to be rejected as not maintainable even at the threshold. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners do not stand on a better footing than a busy-body or a rank meddlesome interlopers having no concern or interest in the outcome of the litigation. According to the learned counsel, the criminal law is not to be used as instrument of wrecking private vengeance or for some private motivation or consideration. 8. It cannot be disputed that the requirement of locus-standi of a party to a litigation is essential and the legal capacity of the party to any litigation has to primarily ascertained before proceeding on merits of the case. The first and principal question which, therefore, requires consideration is : Do the petitioners herein, who are totally strangers and have no direct personal stake in the out come of the case, have any locus-standi to challenge the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail to the accused/non-petitioners? If the answer comes in negative, the petition must fail on this preliminary ground. 9. After deep anxious consideration we find force in the submission of Mr. Bajwa. Admittedly, the petitioners are strangers to the litigation and they are not at all the aggrieved or affected party. The petitioners are also not maintaining the petition as an aggrieved or affected party. They claim to be students of Law College and as per their own saying they are filing the petition as enlightened citizens of the society and believers in the majesty of law. They have filed the petition having no personal knowledge on basis of the facts disclosed by newspapers or electronic media. They claim to be students of Law College and as per their own saying they are filing the petition as enlightened citizens of the society and believers in the majesty of law. They have filed the petition having no personal knowledge on basis of the facts disclosed by newspapers or electronic media. According to them, they are maintaining the petition as they feel that the release of the accused on bail pertains to a case which has crossed all the limits of morality and accused are maintaining the petition as they feel that the release of the accused on bail pertains to a case which has crossed all the limits of morality and accused are guilty of trading in organs of human body. It may be stated that the present case as proceeded on police reports. No doubt, the terms of Section 482 or Section 439(2) Cr.PC are very wide and this Court can also take cognizance of the matter suo- motu, but the fact still remains that barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters, the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of social interests and the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the persons who have acted against the social interest and the community to book. It should not be lost sight that criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking venegence or for some private motivation of oblique consideration. 10. In the Code, apart from Sections 301 and 302, there is no provision to enable a third party to get himself impleaded in the proceeding to prosecute any person in a Court. Sections 301 and 302 Cr.RC. read as under: 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. 10. In the Code, apart from Sections 301 and 302, there is no provision to enable a third party to get himself impleaded in the proceeding to prosecute any person in a Court. Sections 301 and 302 Cr.RC. read as under: 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. (1) The public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor incharge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal; & (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader 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 pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. 302. Permission to conduct prosecution. (1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person, other than a police officer below the rank of inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor, or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission. Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted. (2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader. A perusal of the Sections would reveal that without permission of the Court, a third party cannot conduct prosecution of any person. A third party therefore, cannot come in a petition for cancellation of bail under the guise of an `intervener' irrespective of any lofty ideals he might be having in his mind in filing the petition. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party who is affected by any order, has the right to question the legality, validity or otherwise correctness of an order. 11. Another limb of the argument about the maintainability of the petition by way of public interest litigation may also be considered. Can it be said that litigation before this Court is in the nature of Public Prosecutor litigation to vindicate and effectuate the public interest ? 12. 11. Another limb of the argument about the maintainability of the petition by way of public interest litigation may also be considered. Can it be said that litigation before this Court is in the nature of Public Prosecutor litigation to vindicate and effectuate the public interest ? 12. In recent years, public interest litigation has acquired significant degree of importance in the modern legal jurisprudence practised by Courts and its horizon is widely extended. In fact, public interest litigation is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically, dis-advantage position should not go un-noticed or un-redressed. It is not in the nature of adversarial litigation. In a private action, the controversy is between two opposing parties for the determination of legal consequences of past events. The character of such litigation is essentially that of vindicating private rights, proceedings being brought by the person in whom right personally inhere or their legally situated representatives who are thus obviously most competent to commence the litigation. The petitioners herein are not seeking any direction or orders for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights of any person, less to say of an aggrieved party under some disability recognised by law. So, the present litigation does not have the slightest characteristic of a public interest allow any third person in a criminal litigation to question the legality, propriety or correctness of the decision of a subordinate court in the garb of public interest litigation. One can very well visualise the adverse affect if every person is permitted to challenge the orders of the Court in the garb of public interest litigation. 13. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India which is taken as gate-way for expanding the scope of "locus standi" rule in public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has sounded a note of caution to the Courts to be observe while entertaining a public interest litigation as follows : "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in case of this kind, is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." 14. In Jasbhai Moti bhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar the Supreme Court rejected at the threshold the locus standi of the busy body in public interest litigation in the following hard hitting terms : "It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories; (i) person aggrieved; (ii) `stranger'; (iii) busy body or meddlesom interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of probono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motices. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some 'applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busy bodies at the threshold." 15. This aspect has been further elaborately discussed by the Apex Court of the country in Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary That was a public interest litigation for quashing First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the C.B.I. on January 22, 1990. The core of allegations in the FIR was that the accused, named or un-named, entered into a criminal conspiracy, obtained illegal gratification in the form of money from Bofors, a Swedish Company, from the agent/firms/ companies/ persons as motive or reward for such public servants who by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise dishonestly using their official position themselves, Bofors, Agents and others in awarding contracts to Bofors for the supply of guns to the Government of India and in the transaction committed offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and using of forged documents. During investigation of the case, the Special Judge allowed the request of the C.B.I. to issue a letter rogatory/request to Switzerland for getting the necessary assistance. During investigation of the case, the Special Judge allowed the request of the C.B.I. to issue a letter rogatory/request to Switzerland for getting the necessary assistance. Shir H.S. Choudhary, an advocate, claiming to be the General Secretary of an Organisation named as `Rashtriya Jan Parishad' which according to him, is devoted `to uphold the Rule of Law, fight against injustice in any field and abide by the Constitution and respect ideals and institutions' filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Special Court to permit him to join during the inquiry in the capacity of public interest litigation and not to issue request/regatory unless an inquiry Under section 340 Cr.PC is held to determine the alleged offence committed by various persons. The Special Judge 'dismissed the petition holding interalia, that he had no locus standi. Shri Choudhary, then, filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the F.I.R. and the letter of rogatory on certain grounds. The High Court came to the conclusion that the said third party litigant had no locus standi to maintain the action and so also the interveners had no right to seek impleadment/intervention in the said proceedings. However, the learned Single Judge took suo motu cognizance of the matter and for the reasons stated in his order, issued a show cause notice to the C.B.I. and the State as to why the F.I.R. should not be quashed. On appeal, the Apex Court also held that Shri H.S. Choudhary had no locus standi to file the petition before the Special Court and also to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of the Special Judge. On the question of locus standi, the relevant observations in paragraph 26 of the judgment read as under: "Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature, registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants." 16. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no locus-standi to maintain the petition before this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.PC to challenge the legality, properiety or otherwise correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the accused/non-petitioners have been granted bail. We also hold that the present litigation does not even have the semblance of public interest litigation and in the garb of public interest litigation, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the said order. 17. Sansing our views on the question of locus-standi of the petitioners to maintain this petition, Mr. S.K. Gupta, Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that this Court should exercise suo motu power to cancel the bail. Mr. Gupta contended that the bail can be cancelled by this Court Under sections 482 and 439(2) Cr.PC. This aspect was also considered by us and we have no hesitation to reject this submission also. It is now well settled by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court of the country that the powers possessed by the High Court Under section 482 Cr.PC though are unrestricted and very wide, should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. Inherent power should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised as against express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. (See Madhu Ltmaye v. State of Maharashtra , Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam , Kushi Ram v. Hasim , State of Orissa v. Ram Chand Agrawal , Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary and Ors. 18. It is not disputed that Sessions Judge, Jaipur City had jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused. Bail has been granted Under section 439(1) Cr.PC after the arrest of accused. Sub section (1) of Section 439 Cr.PC confers same power on the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant bail to a person in any case with or without any condition. The bail granted by the Court of Sessions can be cancelled by the said Court and this Court also on certain well defined grounds. After going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge we are satisfied that prima- facie it does not suffer from any infirmity or arbitrariness so as to exercise suo-motu power to cancel the same. The bail granted by the Court of Sessions can be cancelled by the said Court and this Court also on certain well defined grounds. After going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge we are satisfied that prima- facie it does not suffer from any infirmity or arbitrariness so as to exercise suo-motu power to cancel the same. Similar petitions filed by the State have also been dismissed by us on 16.1.96 though, with liberty to move for cancellation of bail before the Court of Sessions on any ground permissible under the law. 19. Thus, judged from any angle, this petition is wholly mis-conceived having no merit and it is hereby dismissed. *******