Asharaf V v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/3RD ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3540 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 552/2015 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANADU DISTRICT ------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

--------------------------------------

1. ASHARAF V., AGED 38 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, VALAVIL HOUSE, MANANTHAVADI WAYANADU DISTRICT.

2. SUNILKUMAR K.P.

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE ARATTUTHARA P.O., MANANTHAVADI, WAYANADU DISTRICT.

3. MANOJ PATTETTU AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, CLUB KUNNU MANANTHAVADI, WAYANADU DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.RESMI THOMAS RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT :

--------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

==================== B.A.No. 3540 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 452, 341, 332, 294(b) read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Kerala Health Care Service Institution Prevention of Violence and Damage Property Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case is that the first petitioner took his 13 year old daughter for treatment to District Hospital, Mananthavadi, where the first informant was working as a doctor. There was some dispute. Petitioners allegedly wrongfully restrained the doctor, uttered obscene words and caused damage to the properties of the hospital and prevented the doctor from discharging her duties. The doctor belongs to a scheduled caste.

3.

Heard.

4.

It appears that the allegations against the petitioners are not very serious. Admittedly, some untoward incident

B.A.No. 3540 of 2015 ::2::

happened. But, for the fact that Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 appears in the First Information Statement, I would have granted anticipatory bail. But, Section 18 bars this Court from exercising the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., I cannot grant it. Petitioners may approach the learned Magistrate under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. if such a situation arises. The Magistrate has ample power to grant bail, if the facts justify. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge