Allowed

Aby M.Abraham v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008Bail Appl./1839/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner, a homeopath, faced charges for practicing allopathy. The court granted bail subject to terms and conditions including appearing before the magistrate and making himself available for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted anticipatory bail to appear before Magistrate for regular bail and make himself available for investigation.

Aby M.Abraham Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1839 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.100/08 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION

¶7

: PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

ABY M.ABRAHAM, MANNIKAROTTU HOUSE, KAITHAPARAMPA P.O., ENATHU VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS

¶12

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J

¶19

B.A.No.1839 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2008

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, a qualified Homeopath, faces allegations that he has committed the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

¶23

The petitioner was allegedly employed as a medical officer at G.M.M Hospital, Mallappally. The petitioner has no qualification to engage himself in allopathic medical practice. He is qualified to engage himself in the profession of a homeopathic medical practice. A patient was brought to the said hospital. The petitioner attended on that patient. The patient was not allegedly given effective treatment. The patient had tubular pregnancy. She expired within a short time after she was taken to the hospital by her husband. The petitioner was only a homeopathic medical practitioner and he had allegedly pretended to be a qualified allopathic medical practitioner and attended on the patient. He was not able to make diagnosis of the disease and the unfortunate victim breathed her last a short time after she was taken to the hospital.

¶24

What is the allegation against the petitioner ? There is no allegation of medical negligence punishable under Section

¶25

B.A.No.1839 of 2008

¶26

¶27

304A I.P.C. But an allegation is raised that the petitioner had committed the offence of cheating in having held himself out to be a qualified allopathic medical practitioner.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence at all. He is and had represented himself to be only a homeopathic practitioner. The hospital is having an allopathic and a homeopathic wings. His appointment was made to the hospital without specifying the branch to which he was appointed. According to the petitioner he was always only rendering professional work as a homeopathic practitioner. The allegation that he had practised allopahty also is totally incorrect. No document whatsoever has been produced to indicate or suggest that the petitioner had held himself out to be an allopathic medical practitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner had actually engaged himself in the practice of allopathy. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the petitioner had mislead the functionaries of the hospital to assume that he is a qualified allopathy practitioner.

¶30

¶31

B.A.No.1839 of 2008

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no merit in that contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. The hospital is bound to verify the records of the petitioner to ascertain the branch of medicine in which he has got qualification to practise. The allegation that the hospital authorities were cheated is, at any rate, unsustainable. It is idle to assume that without verifying any proper documents, the hospital authorities would have lightly assumed the petitioner to be an allopathic practitioner and appointed him.

¶33

On an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I find merit in such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that subject to appropriate terms and conditions which shall ensure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

¶34

In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶35

i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 16.04.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

¶36

B.A.No.1839 of 2008 4

¶37

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 1 p.m on 17.04.2008 and 18.04.2008. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

¶38

iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all;

¶39

iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 16.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 16.04.08.

¶40

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-

¶41

B.A.No.1839 of 2008 5

Aby M.Abraham v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aby M.Abraham v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Manaf Vs S.I. of Police

Saji and Others Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Bhanu Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Lathika M.V. Vs State of Kerala

G.Shreekumar Vs the State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs S.I. of Police, Pulpally and Another