IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.02.2024CORAM:THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICont. P. No. 2593 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Cont. P. No. 2593 of 2022

M.Elumalai …petitioner
Vs.
1.Diwagar @ Raja
2.Raj Kumar
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing – II,
Subbarayan Nagar,
Jagir Ammapalayam,
Salem District – 636 302.
…Respondents
PRAYER : This Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, to punish the respondent for the disobedience of this Court order in Crl.O.P No. 25830 of 2021 dated 29.12.2021.
ORDER

This Contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents
for the disobedience of this Court dated 29.12.2021 in Crl.O.P No. 25830 of 2021.

2. Heard both sides.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the defacto
   complainant, 1st respondent/Diwagar @ Raja/Accused along with their respective counsel and some of the victims appeared before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/accused seeks time
   to arrange the amount by selling the tailoring machine and settle the issues.
5. On the other side, some of the victims namely Sathya, Meena
   and Rajeswari appeared before this court raised objection that the first respondent sold one tailoring machine to three victims and also stated that neither delivered the machine nor return the amount. The submission of the first respondent is that he would arrange the amount by selling the tailoring machine, given to the victims as such is not acceptable one.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) stated that the
   investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. He further submitted that the property of the accused worth about Eighty lakhs was secured but the amount involved in this case is more than Ten crores.
7. The submission of the first respondent is that he would arrange
   the amount by selling the tailoring machine, given to the victims.
8. On Perusal of the records, it reveals that this Court has already
   given anticipatory bail to the first respondent on 29.12.2021 and also appointed the Advocate Commissioner to settle the issues, as per undertaking given by the first respondent before this Court to settle the issues. However, the first respondent/accused has not complied his undertaking given before this Court. Even as per the prosecution, as on date more than 237 victims are involved in this case. Further, the first respondent is also not cooperated to settle the issue, therefore the Advcoate commissioner initiated this contempt proceedings. On perusal of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the first respondent, it reveals based on undertaking given by the first respondent that this Court had appointed the Advocate commissioner in order to settle the issue apart from that this Court given other directions to settle the issue, as on date, the first respondent not cooperated for the proceedings nor settled the amount to the victims. On earlier occasion also he has not complied the condition imposed by this Court. Therefore anticipatory bail was cancelled on the petition filed by the investigating officer as a result on 26.02.2022 he surrendered before the TNPID Court and was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the final report was not filed within the stipulated period of 60 days from his arrest, so he availed mandatory bail in Cr.M.P No. 1555 of 2022 on 06.09.2022. Therefore as on date he was released on the mandatory bail. The learned counsel for the first respondent/accused submitted that already final report was filed he needs some more time to settle the amount. On seeing the contact of the petitioner as he had already given assurance before this Court that he would settle the amount but he has not taken any steps to settle the issue which itself clearly implies that in order to get bail before the Court he gave false assurance, would also amounts to abuse of process of law. Though he was released on mandatory bail, before that he gave assurance to settle the issue along with undertaking to repay the amount at the time of granting anticipatory bail. As on date he was not complied the same as such is he was not cooperating to settle the issue as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate Commissioner. Considering the above, the Mandatory bail granted by the TNPID Court is canceled since because he may abscond and tamper the evidence. Further, the 2nd respondent police is directed to secure the accused/first respondent as per manner known to law.
9. In view of the above direction, this contempt petition is
   disposed of.
   16.02.2024.
   pbl
   Note : Issue order copy on 16.02.2024.
   T.V.THAMILSELVI,J. pbl
   Cont. P. No.2593 of 2022
   16.02.2024
   To
   The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.