Second anticipatory bail application by an L&T Finance employee accused under Section 306 IPC of abetting a borrower's suicide after demanding a Rs.1,850 instalment. The court doubted newly produced loan-settlement documents, found no change in circumstances and noted the petitioner was absconding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
This is second anticipatory bail petition.
2. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC in Crime No.511 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
had been set out in detail in the earlier order, it must be placed on record that the petitioner herein appears to have an affinity to present before this Court totally false facts and facts which had not been stated when the earlier anticipatory bail petition was argued before this Court. Now several documents have been produced which indicate that the deceased, who was a borrower under the company where the petitioner is working, namely, L&T Finance Limited., Mayiladuthurai, has settled all the loans.
1
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
This was a fact which was never mentioned in the earlier hearing date and therefore, this Court suspects the very document which had been produced as being produced only for the purpose of obtaining anticipatory bail and had been created for that particular purpose. Let the document be tested during the course of trial and at this state, I am not take the document at the face value.
2
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
pointing out possibilities and the manner of argument. It is of-course the right of the Advocate to expand arguments but they should not go to the extent that the mother-in-law was there and she saw her daughter-in-law hanging, and that she had gone to that room after hearing the noise of the stool being kicked down, does not mean that she must be added as an accused of offence. The actual cause for the commission of the suicide was the humiliation which the deceased had suffered at the demand of the monthly instalment of Rs.1,850/-. Even on the earlier occasion, this Court had observed that, may be for the petitioner, Rs.1,850/- may be a small amount, but for the deceased, to go around and collect that amount in the morning would be a hard task. She had to go around various house to collect the money and then pay.
3
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
out that the new documents relied on now by the learned counsel for the petitioner are print outs and which could be easily generated from any computer at any corner and at any place and not necessarily at the place of L&T Finance Limited., at Mayiladuthurai. They had not brought to the knowledge of this Court when the earlier anticipatory bail petition had been dismissed. Therefore, there seems to have been an intent to divert the mind of the Court and present the facts which had not been stated in the earlier petition.
4
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
petitioner and not permitting the respondents from taking him to custody. If that be so, then the officials of that particular company, namely, L&T Finance Limited., at Mayiladuthurai, should hang their head in shame for violating the Rules of Law. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
02.02.2024
vsg
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
5
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
vsg
Crl.O.P.No.284 of 2024
02.02.2024
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner facing Section 306 IPC charges for allegedly driving the deceased to suicide by demanding loan instalments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (L&T Finance Limited employee)
Respondent police
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
