Funds deposited by an accused as a condition of bail do not automatically vest in the complainant/victim unless a specific judicial order for compensation is passed during conviction or otherwise.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- deposited in Cr.No.90/2022 in compliance of the orders of this Court made in Crl.OP.(MD).No.2843/2022.

2. A perusal of the records reveal that this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused, passed an order dated 30.03.2022 directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Thereafter, the accused was convicted and filed a revision petition, and the same was pending before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner herein has approached the trial Court by filing an application seeking to release of the amount deposited by the accused person, pursuant to the order passed in the anticipatory bail petition.

3. The application filed by the petitioner was returned. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P. No.9402 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 09.09.2024, passed the following order:

''3. It is not in dispute that after trial, the learned Magistrate has passed the conviction judgment and even in the judgment, compensation was not awarded to the defacto complainant. Moreover, even in the bail order passed by this Court, this Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the undertaking affidavit given by the petitioner/accused to show his bonafide that he was ready to deposit the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, directed the accused therein to deposit the said amount before the trial Court without prejudice to his right and contentions within a period of three weeks and this Court has neither made any direction nor any observation that the petitioner herein is entitled to get the amount and such an observation cannot be made at the time of granting bail.

4. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner was given permission to get back that amount, the return made by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this concludes that the Criminal original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. ''

4. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, which was deposited by the accused pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the anticipatory bail application.

5. In such view of the matter, there are no merits in the present Criminal Original Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.