ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. The first respondent herein, namely, S. Thenmurugan stands implicated as first accused in Crime No. 13 of 2019 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women, Police Station, Karaikudi, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C

2. His wife Kokila Devi has levelled serious allegations of physical and mental cruelty against him. While so, apprehending arrest at the hands of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi, first respondent filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 7760 of 2019 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. In the said petition, the defacto complainant T. Kokila Devi filed an intervention petition. The said petition for anticipatory bail was however dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28.06.2019. Thereafter, Thenmurugan filed Cr.M.P.(MD) No. 1413 of 2019 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. An affidavit was filed in support of the said petition. In paragraph' No. 9 of the said affidavit, Thenmurugan solemnly affirmed that he had not filed any similar bail petition before the High Court or any other Court earlier.

3. The petition for anticipatory bail was taken up for consideration by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, on 03.07.2019. Interestingly, the Public Prosecutor did not seriously object to grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Thenmurugan. This Criminal Original petition has been filed by the defacto complainant for canceling the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting the relief of anticipatory bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent No. 1, had no explanation with regard to the averment made in paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition for anticipatory bail before the Court below. In other words, the fact that the accused had suppressed the filing of the petition for anticipatory bail before this Court stands unrebutted.

6. Any litigant who approaches the Court of Law for relief must come with clean hands. If it turns out that he comes with unclean hands, he ought to be non-suited at the very threshold. In this case, the first respondent herein had obviously moved the Court below with unclean hands.

7. A more serious question of law as to the very maintainability of his petition for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court also arises. Though the learned Government Advocate submitted that the investigating officer ought to have informed the learned Sessions Judge about the dismissal of Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 7760 of 2019 by this Court on 28.06.2019, he brought to my attention a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in CA. No. 1221 of 2019 (Sharad V. The State of Maharashtra and another), dated 08.08.2019 which reads as follows:-

"Having carefully scrutinized the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court has passed the impugned order, without application of its mind, by revoking the bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application.

It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only.

Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court revoking the bail granted to the appellant b