IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1407 of 2008()
1. SHAJEER,AGE 30 YEARS, S/O.KAREEM,
... Petitioner
2. HASALUL BASARI, AGED 18 YEARS
3. SALAHUDHEEN,AGED 30,
4. ABDUL KHADER @ ABDUKUTTY, AGED 27,
5. JABEEL METHAR, AGED 26,
6. MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 32,S/O. HYDROSE,
7. RAFEEQUE,AGED 27,S/O.ABDU,
8. MUHARUDHEEN @ MAYINKUTTY,AGED 28,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.1407 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1
to 8. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging
offences punishable inter alia under Section 452 I.P.C. They
were not named as accused in the F.I.R. In the course of
investigation, they have been arrayed as accused.
2. A pregnant lady was attacked and injuries were
inflicted on her. The injured lady was rushed to a local hospital.
It is alleged that the local hospital refused admission to the lady
and wanted her to be taken to some other centre for treatment.
The hospital authorities allegedly refused to even spare the
ambulance to carry the lady to the hospital. Ultimately, the lady
had to be carried to another hospital in another vehicle. Before
she reached the next hospital, she succumbed to her injuries.
The local people were allegedly infuriated by the conduct of the
hospital authorities. The allegation in this crime is that such
persons – they are alleged to include the petitioners herein, had
unleashed an attack on the hospital later because of the
dissatisfaction with the conduct of the hospital authorities.
Crime has been registered. The only non-bailable offence is the
B.A.No.1407/08 2
one punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent. It is true that there were some
tension at the relevant time as the hospital had refused to
entertain the patient or co-operate for giving her prompt medical
aid. But the allegations raised against the petitioners are totally
incorrect. They are not guilty of any offence alleged. The police
had come to the scene, it is submitted; but at that point of time,
the police did not think it necessary to proceed against anyone of
the local people. Subsequently the allegations are being raised
against the petitioners.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the
attack on the hospital is well borne out by the materials that
have been collected from the scene of the crime which bears tell
tale indications about the acts of violence against the hospital.
Investigation clearly reveals the complicity of the petitioners.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt or suspect the conclusion
presently drawn that the petitioners were also involved in the
attack against the hospital. Such attacks against hospitals must
be frowned upon. Serious view is liable to be taken. At any rate
B.A.No.1407/08 3
there is absolutely no reason warranting or justifying the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners may be directed to surrender
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied
that there are no features in this case which would justify
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public
Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before
the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and
ordinary course.
6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer
or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case,
the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.1407/08 4
B.A.No.1407/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007