D LOGANATHAN Vs. A L PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 25.4.2008 on the basis that Trial Court issued non-bailable warrant against him. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and further it is stated that only bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. THE learned counsel for the petitioner suppressing such fact reported before this Court that non-bailable warrant was issued and on the basis of that, this Court granted the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on condition to appear before the Trial Court on all dates except on those days by filing a Petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. by assigning valid reasons. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of such order, till date the petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court and subsequently the complainant in this case put into great hardship and the trial is not proceeded. THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court ordered private notice and notice was also served on the first respondent but the first respondent has not appeared before this Court.

(2.) IN this matter, in spite of serving notice on the 1st respondent herein, the 1st respondent has not appeared in person nor through any Advocate and as such this Court appointed Mr. N. Doraisamy as Legal Aid Counsel for the 1st respondent herein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that time may be extended to the 1st respondent to appear before the Trial Court as it is only a Private Complaint case.

(3.) IT is unfortunate to note that in spite of granting the order of anticipatory bail by this Court as early as on 25.4.2008, the 1st respondent herein has not complied with the said order and not appeared before the Trial Court. IT is seen that the 1st respondent is facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. IT is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that eight months after granting the relief of anticipatory bail in this matter dated 25.4.2008, the 1st respondent herein filed quashing Petition and the same was admitted and interim stay was granted. However, it is seen that in spite of serving notice in this matter the 1st respondent not even appeared before this Court and he has not complied with the order passed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is constrained to cancel the anticipatory order already granted to the petitioner in this matter in Crl.O.P. No,9529 of 2008 dated 25.4.2008 in C.C. No,353 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.