Kerala High Court
James M.J vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6396 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1093/2018 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :
JAMES M.J, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O JOSEPH, ALLENS COTTAGE, NELLIMUKAL PO,
KADAMPANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA 691551.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 68231.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2018,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6935/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
B.As.6396 & 6935 of 2018 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6935 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1093/2018 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
DR.V. SOBHANA, AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O. V. S. AJAYAKUMAR,
GREESHMAM, KAMUKINCODE,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION,
ANCHALUMMOODU-691 601.
SRI C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2018,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6396/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
B.As.6396 & 6935 of 2018 3
ORDER
These applications are filed under Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1093 of 2018 of the Anchalummoodu Police Station registered under Sections 420 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 118 (e) of the Kerala Police Act.
3. The 2nd accused was running a Para-clinic at Kadavoor, Kollam and the 1st accused was appointed in the said clinic to treat patients. Though the 1st accused is a qualified Homeopathic Practitioner, she was dispensing allopathic medicines by deceiving patients. Numerous complaints were received and a search was conducted. Large quantity of allopathic medicines were seized from the clinic. The nurses and the patients were questioned and they disclosed that the 1st accused was portraying herself as a qualified allopathic Physician and was dispensing allopathic drugs. Notice was issued to the accused to appear and furnish materials enabling her B.As.6396 & 6935 of 2018 4 to practice allopathic system of medicine. On receipt of the notice, the 1st accused approached the Court of Sessions and sought for anticipatory bail. The same having been dismissed, they have approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st accused would contend that she is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd accused is running Siva Clinic at Kadavoor and he has employed two qualified doctors, who specialise in allopathic medicine. The 2nd accused has never dispensed allopathic medicine to any of her patients and according to the learned counsel, she was exclusively practicing in homeopathic medicine.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd accused on the other hand would contend that he has no connection with the Siva Clinic from where the drugs were seized. According to the learned counsel, the Clinic was being run by one Dr. Raju K.Baby and Dr. Ferook Ali and all that the 2 nd accused had done was take the premise on lease to enable them to conduct the Clinic. It is further submitted that the 1st accused had approached the 2nd accused and B.As.6396 & 6935 of 2018 5 the other doctors and had misled them to believe that she was a qualified allopathic doctor. It was only later that they realised that her assertions were false.
6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has opposed the prayer.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Even before this Court, inconsistent contentions are taken by the applicants herein. The 2nd accused has contended that he and the other doctors were persuaded by the 1st accused to believe that she was a qualified allopathic Physician. The case diary contains the statement of the nurses who were employed in the clinic. They have all stated that the 1st accused was dispensing allopathic medicines by portraying herself as a qualified doctor. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to invoke the powers of this Court and grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
8. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the court having jurisdiction and seek regular B.As.6396 & 6935 of 2018 6 bail. If application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.
These applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV/3/11/18 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE