High Court Kerala High Court

D.Raghuvaran vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
D.Raghuvaran vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5596 of 2008()


1. D.RAGHUVARAN, AGED 55, W/O.DAMODARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :13/10/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.
                 -------------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.5596 of 2008
                 -------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008


                                 O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 304 IPC.

According to prosecution, petitioner who is running a medical

shop, administered an injection on the deceased Salim, on

2.10.2006, as an alleged treatment for Chikun gunia. Because of

this injection, the patient developed infection and though he was

taken to the Medical College Hospital, he died on 4.10.2006.

The investigation reveals that the petitioner’s acts have caused

the death of the deceased Salim and on a complaint filed by his

brother-in-law of the victim, a crime is registered against the

petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The

patient was treated in the Medical College Hospital and he died

only at the hospital. It is not correct to say that the petitioner

has done anything to cause the death.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

BA No.5596/08 2

submitted that the case diary reveals that the petitioner has

administered an injection using a non-sterile needle and he has

treated the patient though he has no qualification for treating

him. He is only conducting the medical shop. This is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, on consideration of the nature

of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to

invoke discretionary powers under Section 438 Crl.P.C. It can

also be seen that the crime was registered as early as in October

2006 and though two years have elapsed, petitioner could not be

arrested. In the nature of allegations made, for the purpose of

investigation, petitioner’s interrogation will be required.

Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the

Investigating Officer within ten days from today and

co-operate with the investigation.

With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl