Kerala High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/23RD ASWINA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 6886 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 753/2014 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
---------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
--------------------------------
RAMESH, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHAITHANYA HOUSE,
MOOTHURUNJI, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.ANILKUMAR (A - 959)
SMT.R.RANJINI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PIN-678101.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S. SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
B.A.No.6886 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 15th day of October, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.753/2014 of Chittur police station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that under the guise of a treatment without any authority, the petitioner had treated one patient and while he was undergoing treatment under the petitioner, he died and thereby, the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 38 of Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same. He is a member of a charitable trust which propagate naturopathy as a healing process for diseases and the de facto complainant's son who was suffering from some illness and undergoing treatment in Sree Chithira Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram came to the camp conducted by the B.A.No.6886 of 2014 : 2 : society for treatment and while undergoing treatment, on account of the illness he died and the petitioner has not involved and he had not induced any one to come to attend the camp as well and he had not received any amount as alleged. So, his presence is not required for investigation. The Counsel prayed for allowing the application.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that after the incident, he was absconding and his presence could not be procured.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary file.
6. It is seen from the case diary file that a case was registered against the petitioner, on the basis of a statement given by the mother of the deceased Vipin Nath, alleging that he had induced to undergo naturopathy treatment for her son on the promise that he will cure the disease and obtained Rs.25,000/- and he died from there while undergoing treatment. It is also seen from the document produced by the petitioner himself that the petitioner moved the Sessions Court, Palakkad for anticipatory bail as Crl.M.P.No.2714/14 and that petition was dismissed on 02.09.2014 directing the investigating officer to comply with the procedure under B.A.No.6886 of 2014 : 3 : Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [2014 (3) KLT 143].
7. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, that was not complied with. When this was directed to be enquired by the Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor had submitted that no notice could be issued to the petitioner as he was absconding. However, considering the fact that the presence of the petitioner may be required for proper investigation, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner invoking the power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating officer is directed to issue notice under 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure by registered post and on receipt of such notice, if the petitioner appears, after interrogation, if the investigating officer feels that the arrest of the petitioner is required, then, record his arrest and produce him before the concerned magistrate court without delay and on such production, if the petitioner moves for regular bail before that court, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing of the application itself after hearing the B.A.No.6886 of 2014 : 4 : Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court.
With the above direction and observation, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge