High Court Kerala High Court

T.B.Madhusoodhanan vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.B.Madhusoodhanan vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2073 of 2010()


1. T.B.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                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.2073 OF 2010
                 -----------------------------------
           Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010

                            O R D E R

This is a petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under section 306 IPC.

According to prosecution, one Shaju committed suicide on

15.3.2010 by hanging after leaving a suicide note that one

Madhu is responsible for his death etc. On investigation,

petitioner is identified as the said “Madhu”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

deceased is an employee of the petitioner who is having a

construction company. Petitioner is not in the habit of giving

money for interest but Rs.10,000/- was taken by the

deceased as loan from the company. Petitioner had not

given any cause for the deceased to commit suicide. The

petitioner’s name is Madhusoodhanan and not Madhu. Even

if the entire allegations of the prosecution are accepted,

offence under section 306 IPC.,will not attract, it is

submitted.

B.A. No.2073/2010 2

4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned

public prosecutor submitted that suicide note was seized

and petitioner is implicated as “Madhu” and investigation is

in progress. The investigation is in progress. It is to be

ascertained whether any document is executed in

connection with the transaction of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is

required for interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides and perusing the case diary

and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

I find that this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction u/s.438

of the court to grant anticipatory bail.

6. I am not going into the question whether offence

u/s 306 IPC. will be attracted or not, at this early stage of

investigation. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the

investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.

Hence, the following order is passed:

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the

investigating officer or Magistrate court

B.A. No.2073/2010 3

concerned without any delay and co-

operate with the investigation.

ii) Whether he surrenders or not the police

is at liberty to proceed against the

petitioner.

This petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Sou.