In the case in hand, Justice R Suresh Kumar made the observation while rejecting a criminal revision case filed by S Priya alias Shema Priya and her mother Juliet Bernard against the order of Principal Sessions Judge for refusing to grant bail.
The case is related to a complaint filed by Soundarrajan, the compliance officer of Sundaram Asset Management Company against Priya, who was the manager- cum-customer relations. The complainant alleged that Priya shared some confidential information with one Balaji Vaidyanathan and misused company funds to the tune of Rs 6.24 crore. Based on this, the Central Crime Branch registered a case against the duo. During investigation, it was reportedly found that they had utilised the money to purchase properties in Egmore and other places.
Originally, they had filed anticipatory bail petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed. Following this, they moved a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed with the liberty to approach the lower court for regular bail.
Based on this, the duo moved the Magistrate Court for regular bail. But with them either failing to appear or surrender before the Magistrate, the bail applications were rejected. Immediately thereafter, they approached the Principal Sessions Judge (PSJ) challenging the Magistrate’s order. But with the PSJ upholding the Magistrate’s order, they moved the High Court again, this time with a revision petition challenging the order of PSJ.
However, noting that the court was of the “firm view” that the orders of the Magistrate and the Principal Sessions Judge that were being challenged before it did not have any infirmity or illegality or any impropriety Justice Suresh Kumar rejected the revision petition at the preliminary sage itself.
“It may be relevant to note that the accused persons were not ready to be arrested or to surrender before the Magistrate or not even ready to appear before the Magistrate for consideration of grant of bail,” the judge added.