Kerala High Court
Stanly @ Joji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1602 of 2018
-----------------
CRIME NO. 115/2018 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
STANLY @ JOJI,
S/O. CHACKO,
IDAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
ANCHALPETTY POST,
CHAKKAKANAM, NEDUMKANDOM.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. SAJJU S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
==================
B.A. No. 1602 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2018
ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.115 of 2018 of the Nedumkandom Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436 and 427 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Kerala Health Care and Service Persons and Health Care Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Property) Act, 2012.
3. The aforesaid Crime was registered on 16.2.2018 at 3.10 p.m., based on information furnished by one Sasindran, the Public Relations Officer of the Jeevamatha Hospital, Nedumkandam. He is also the brother of the Proprietress of the said hospital.
4. According to the informant, at 9 a.m., on the previous day, a lady, who was admitted in the hospital for delivery, died on the operation table while undergoing Cesarean section. The relatives of the deceased lady trespassed into the hospital and caused extensive damages. This was at BA.1602/18 -:2:- midnight. On the next day at 9 a.m., the petitioner herein along with 50 others, who could be identified at sight, entered the hospital premises and caused extensive damages inside the hospital.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner is bereft of truth. According to the learned counsel, on 16.2.2018, Crime No.113 of 2018 was registered against the doctor under Section 304A of the IPC when a patient died consequent to a blatant act of medical negligence. The relatives of the deceased entered the hospital premises and caused extensive damages and based on the information furnished by the cashier of the hospital, Crime No.114 of 2018 was registered at 2 p.m., on 16.2.2018. He pointed out that the cashier only complains about the incident which took place at midnight and does not refer to the incident which took place at 9 a.m. on 16.2.2018. This, according to the learned counsel, would show that no such incident had taken place. According to the learned counsel, after the registration of the aforesaid Crime, at about 3.10 p.m., the Public Relations Officer of the hospital has BA.1602/18 -:3:- furnished another statement which has led to the registration of Crime No.115 of 2018. The contention of the learned counsel is that if the incident of the nature alleged in Crime No.115 of 2018 had actually happened, the same would have been disclosed by the cashier when he had furnished the F.I.Statement in Crime No.114 of 2018.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the contentions of the learned counsel, submitted that due to an oversight, the informant in Crime No.114 of 2018 had omitted to mention the incident which took place at 9 a.m. on 16.2.2018. It is further submitted that extensive damages were caused by the petitioner and 50 others and their involvement is clearly borne out from the prosecution records.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through Annexures-A, B and C. Annexure-C FIR in Crime No.114 of 2018, as stated above, has been registered at 2 p.m., on 16.2.2018. The cashier of the hospital, who lodged the F.I.Statement, does not even say a word about the incident which took place at 9 a.m. However, he states about the presence of the police in the hospital premises BA.1602/18 -:4:- after midnight. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, this omission is very material. If in fact, the incident of the nature alleged in Crime No.115 of 2018 has taken place at 9 a.m., there is no reason why the cashier would have failed to disclose the same. Furthermore, the policemen were on duty and they would definitely have prevented any damage being caused to the hospital and vehicles. The prosecution has no case that any of the policemen on duty had witnessed the incident which took place at 9 a.m. on 16.2.2018 or that the petitioner and the other accused had violated the lawful orders of the policemen on duty. The contention of the learned counsel that he was roped in later cannot be brushed aside. I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is uncalled for in the instant case.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the BA.1602/18 -:5:- like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of one month or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.
ii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
iv) If the petitioner intends to leave India, he shall obtain previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge krj.31/3 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE