R.Pandi vs State And Others

G.Ilangovan, J

Seeking direction to the second respondent, who is shown as 4th accused in C.C.No.54 of 2019 to deposit or comply the order that has been passed by the learned Principal District Judge, in Crl.M.P.No.6391 of 2019 dated 07.01.2020 to deposit Rs.3.78 Lakhs, this petition has been filed.

2.Now the grievance of the petitioner is that while granting anticipatory bail by the Principal District Judge, a condition was imposed upon the second respondent to deposit the above said amount. He failed. But in the meantime, investigation has been completed and final report was also filed by the first respondent showing the second respondent as absconding accused. Suppressing the above said granting of anticipatory bail by the learned Principal District Judge, imposing condition, he filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7596 of 2022, seeking direction to the trial Court to consider the warrant recalling application on the date of surrender. That was also considered by this Court by giving direction to the trial Court to consider the warrant recall application to be filed by the second respondent on the same day itself. The above said order was passed on 25.04.2022. Taking advantage of the above said order, he also surrendered before the trial Court and get the warrant recalled. Even though the petition has been filed seeking direction to the second respondent to deposit the amount, now the issue involved is suppression of facts before this Court. With regard to the direction that cannot be redressed before this Court. He has to approach only the concerned Principal District judge for appropriate remedy.

3.For suppression of fact only Registry is directed to process the above said petition and number the same, if it is otherwise in order and list the matter before this Court with regard to the above said grievance of non depositing of amount, he can approach the concerned Principal District Judge for appropriate remedy as noted above.