IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2073 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.203/2010 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) APPLICATS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- T.B.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,THEKKINIYEDATH HOUSE, POTTORE P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE VIYYUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss 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.