SREEJESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 759/2013 of Vatakara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 427 and 506(i) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Kerala Healthcare Person and Health Care Institution (Protection of Violence and Damages of Property) Act, 2012. They have filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). Allegation is that the accused, eight in number, as members of an unlawful assembly, after committing criminal trespass upon a hospital, namely, Vatakara Cooperative Hospital Ltd., at about 15.30 hrs. on 20.5.2013, indulged in violent acts and caused damages breaking down glass panels of a laboratory of that hospital. Petitioners have caused damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to hospital, is the further allegation. Crime was registered on a complaint given by the Secretary of hospital, naming two persons and the rest identifiable by sight as the accused persons. A relative of one of the accused had undergone treatment in the hospital. When she was discharged in the discharge summery her blood group was wrongly stated, is the reason alleged why petitioners committed the violent acts in the aforesaid hospital. Investigation of that crime is now in progress and at this stage, petitioners have filed the above application for extending them the discretionary relief canvassed of.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime. Petitioners have not been named in the FIR as accused, is the further submission of counsel, to urge for extending them the relief canvassed of.

(3.) Opposing the application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered by the investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioners in the offences imputed. Case diary has been produced for my perusal. After hearing the submissions and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find this is not a fit case where petitioners can be extended the relief of anticipatory bail. Petitioners have not been named in the FIR is not a ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Investigation has disclosed, prima facie, complicity of in the offences imputed, and when that be so, having regard to the place of occurrence and gravity of the offences imputed, I find petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. However, they can be provided an opportunity to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.