IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6969 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1755/2008 OF PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED:- -------------------- 1. DR.PRASANT.J, NAIK, 34 YEARS GANESH CLINIC. PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR. 2. ISSAC , 64 YEARS KAICHIRAMATTATH HOUSE PAYYAVOOR , KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6969 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 457 and 294(b) IPC. According to prosecution, 1st petitioner and de facto complainant were working as doctor and nurse in a private hospital. On knowing that 1st petitioner was having some illicit intimacy with another nurse, she informed the same to hospital authorities. Therefore, 1st petitioner was terminated from service. Infuriated by this, 1st petitioner along with his friend (2nd petitioner) went to house of de facto complainant and abused her by using obscene language and committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Sub Inspector has some grudge against 1st petitioner and hence a false complaint is cooked up, with the aid of de facto complainant. He submitted that one Dr. Dinesan moved out of the same hospital where 1st petitioner was working. Thereafter, he was forcing 1st accused to come out of the hospital. Since 1st petitioner refused, threat continued. Ultimately, 1st petitioner filed a complaint before the police against Dr. Dinesan. The 1st accused and Dri.Dinesan were called by police and 1st accused was asked by the Sub Inspector as influenced by Dr. Dinesan to BA 6969/08 -2- quit the hospital and take up independent practice. Since petitioner refused to do so, the Sub Inspector threatened that he would cook up some case against him. The 1st petitioner, therefore, sent Annexure-I complaint to the Honourable Chief Minister making allegations against the Sub Inspector. In such circumstances, the Sub Inspector influenced de facto complainant to lodge a false complaint against petitioners, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that 1st petitioner was attacked by some gundas sent by the Sub Inspector and he was in the hospital as evidenced by Annexure-III medical certificate. He had sustained fracture also to the limb. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant has clearly stated in the complaint the circumstances under which she was abused and offences were committed by petitioners. The allegations against the Sub Inspector are not correct. It is not understood why a woman like de facto complainant should aid the police to make a false complaint. The alleged dispute between 1st petitioner and Dr. Dinesan has nothing to do with this incident. In the nature of allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. BA 6969/08 -3- 5. On hearing both sides, considering the rival contentions it is not clear to me at this stage as to how petitioners can connect Annexures-I and III to the incident in this case. It is not understood why de facto complainant who is a woman should falsely fabricate a false complaint against petitioners. Even if the Sub Inspector has some motive against petitioner, it is not understood why the de facto complainant must lodge a false complaint. The mere existence of a dispute with another person by itself may not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail or make any conclusions in favour of petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.