ORDER : 1. The challenge in these Petitions is to the order dated 18.04.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 21, 23, 24 and 25 of 2022. All these Applications arise out of Crime No. 11/2022 of P.S. Mormugao in connection with offence under Section 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC, which offences are being currently investigated by the Economic Offence Cell (EOC), Goa. By the impugned order, the Application for intervention filed by the petitioner seeking permission to address oral arguments in order to oppose the Applications for anticipatory bail, is rejected. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Wilson Godinho Vs. Public Prosecutor & Another (CRMA No. 52/2020 in CRMAB No. 28/2020 decided on 06.02.2020) in order to hold that the intervenor can only assist the prosecution. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Others Vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 453, which decision has incidentally come on the same day i.e. 18.04.2022, on which date the impugned order was passed. One of the issues which fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of the bail application and the said issue has been answered in the affirmative. Obviously, this decision could not be brought to the notice of the Sessions Court as it came on the same day on which day, the impugned order was passed. 5. It transpires that the Applications for anticipatory bail are pending from February 2022 and the Applications for intervention have been heard at some length. It also transpires that while addressing the learned Sessions Court on the need for hearing the intervenor in the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also touched on the merits of the Applications seeking anticipatory bail. 6. It also transpires that while addressing the learned Sessions Court on the need for hearing the intervenor in the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also touched on the merits of the Applications seeking anticipatory bail. 6. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the petitioner/intervenor may be allowed to conclude his arguments, opposing, the Applications for grant of bail, after which, the learned Sessions Court can decide the Applications expeditiously. It is submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner/intervenor can address the Court after conclusion of the arguments on behalf of the State. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will need approximately half an hour to conclude his arguments on the merits of the Applications. 8. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Writ Petitions are disposed of by consent of parties in the following terms: ORDER (a) The impugned order is hereby modified. (b) The learned Sessions Judge shall hear the learned Counsel for the petitioner on merits of the Applications for anticipatory bail, after conclusion of the arguments on behalf of the State. (c) The learned Sessions Judge shall thereafter decide the main Applications as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31.05.2022. 9. The Criminal Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.