A M KUMARAN Vs. C ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. RAMAMURTHI, J.

(2.) THIS petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the memorandum of Grounds in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99 on the file of the High Court and the order of this Court dated 11-5-1999 and make in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Duraipandian, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T. Sudanthiram. Advocate for the 1st respondent and of Mr. N. R. Elango, Government, Advocate (cr1. side) on behalf of the 2nd respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order: Petition filed to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99 dated 11-5- 1999 by this Court.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the first respondent was working as Manager in the Kellys Branch of Sri Gokulam chit and Finance Company, The petitioner, who was Director in charge of the said company, has given the complaint against the first respondent for alleged offence under Section 408, IPC alleging that he had committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 67 lakhs. On the basis of the complaint, the 2nd respondent arrested the first respondent and remanded to custody. Ultimately, the first respondent was released on bail by this Court in Cr1. O. P. 8029/99 dated 11-5-1999. Now, the petitioner has filed this application to cancel the bail on two grounds. The first ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after release on bail, the first respondent came to the office with hencemen and threatened him to withdraw the complaint or else, he has to face with dire consequences. Again, on 26-6-1999, the first respondent with his henchmen went to the house of the petitioner and threatened not only the petitioner but the other family members with a similar threat. The petitioner has given complaint with the 2nd respondent and according to the learned government, Advocate, petition enquiry is pending. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent had suppressed the pendency of the bail application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed another petition for the same relied before this Court in cr1. O. P. 8029/99 and got an order in both Courts. In short, the suppression of the pendency of one application before this Court amounts to an abuse of process of law.