ORDER : G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner/defacto complainant in Cr.No.1036 of 2018 on the file of the Sooramanagalam Police Station has made a third party application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking copy of surety affidavit and documents furnished by the sureties along with solvency certificate and house tax receipt been complied with the anticipatory bail order granted to A1 and A2. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate has returned the application stating that the surety documents are privileged documents which were accepted by the Court after due verification as per Rule 14 of Criminal Rules of Practice 2019. This 3 rd party copy application was dismissed on 27.04.2023. 3. In the meanwhile, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and now pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem in SC.No.323 of 2023. The petitioner/defacto complainant has revived his copy application before the District and Sessions Court where the records been forwarded on committal. This application been returned with an endorsement “ surety memo not complied” in this case. Hence, copy application returned. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that serious fraud been committed on the Court while furnishing surety and the Judicial Magistrate has not tested /verified the sureties properly as contemplated under Rule 14 of Criminal Rules of Practice and therefore as the defacto complainant/victim is entitled to get copy of surety documents. However, both the Judicial Magistrate as well as Court of Sessions had failed to take note of the fact that the victim as defined under Section 2(u) of the Code is entitled to participate in the proceedings including bail/anticipatory bail and deprived the victim from getting the documents, which are necessary to ascertain whether the accused persons have furnished true and genuine sureties to avail pre arrest bail. 5. On perusing the records, this Court finds that the copy application though not speak about the purpose for which application is made in this criminal original petition the petitioner has explained why he need the copies of documents furnished along with surety memo. The 3 rd party copy application should be entertained, if satisfactory reasons provided. 6. In this case, the petitioner has filed copy application along with his affidavit before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. The Sessions Court has returned the application as if no surety memo available. The 3 rd party copy application should be entertained, if satisfactory reasons provided. 6. In this case, the petitioner has filed copy application along with his affidavit before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. The Sessions Court has returned the application as if no surety memo available. This return is contrary to the docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 27.04.2023. 7. In normal course, once the case is committed to the court of sessions, all material and immaterial records ought to be forwarded to the Court of Sessions. This Court presumes that the surety papers also should have been forwarded to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, it is suffice to direct the petitioner herein to re-present his affidavit and application before the Court of Sessions where the matter is pending as SC.No.323 of 2023. On presentation of the copy application, the same shall be dealt in accordance with Rule 2 (10) of Criminal Rule Practice and copies is furnished and collecting the necessary fee. 8. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 9. The Registry is directed to return the original copy application and the affidavit filed along with the copy application to enable the petitioner herein to re-present it before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.