Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The … on 21 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2844 of 2010()


1. MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.RAMADEVAN,AGED 45 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :21/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J.
                       ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 2844 of 2010
                  ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010

                             O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code. According to the prosecution, one Reghu and his wife

Leela, who are husband and wife committed suicide, after writing

suicide notes, by consuming poison at their house. Petitioner was

spreading rumours in the locality, about the deceased Leela. The

deceased Reghu expressed objection to this who was assaulted by

petitioner and the couple suicide was forced to commit.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

allegations are not true. The deceased couple has committed

suicide because of financial stringencies. The diary seized by the

police shows the details of the names of the persons, to whom

the deceased owed money.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage. The suicide

notes clearly reveal that petitioner is responsible for the suicide

and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner.

B.A. No. 2844 of 2010 2

5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the case diary, I

am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail,

while considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is ready to surrender before the investigating officer

and he is bound to co-operate with the investigation. Hence the

following order is passed:

Petitioner shall surrender before the

investigating officer without any delay and

co-operate with the investigation. Whether

he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty

to arrest and proceed in accordance with law.

This petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

ln