IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1407 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.105/08 OF KALADY POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. SHAJEER,AGE 30 YEARS, S/O.KAREEM, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 2. HASALUL BASARI, AGED 18 YEARS S/O. ABU, EDAPPALLATH HOUSE, THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 3. SALAHUDHEEN,AGED 30, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHU, PUTHENPURAYIL, THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 4. ABDUL KHADER @ ABDUKUTTY, AGED 27, S/O.IBRAHI, THATTARUKUDI HOUSE THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 5. JABEEL METHAR, AGED 26, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI,KAKKANATTIL HOUSE, THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 6. MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 32,S/O. HYDROSE, THARAYIL HOUSE,THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 7. RAFEEQUE,AGED 27,S/O.ABDU, ILAVUMKUDI HOUSE,THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. 8. MUHARUDHEEN @ MAYINKUTTY,AGED 28, S/O.YUSUF, KOTTIKKATHOTTAHIL HOUSE, THEKKUM BHAGUM VILLAGE SREEMOOLANAGARAM PANCHAYATH,ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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