KANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The death of Sobhana alleged to have been subjected to medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) led to registration of a case unnatural death in Crime No. 101 of 1983 of Kannapuram Police Station, later transferred to Balipatnam Police Station and registered as Crime No. 164 of 1983 against the two petitioners as accused for offences under Sections 304 and 314 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the M.T.P. Act. They were arrested on 3-3-1984 and on the very next day they were granted interim bail by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the request for bail made by the first accused and granted conditional bail to the second accused. Both the accused, being aggrieved, have filed these M.C. cases. The case diary has been placed before me and I have heard both sides.

(2.) Sobhana, mother of two children, along with her husband approached the first accused, Medical Officer in the Pappinissery Primary Health Centre, on 11-11-1983 with complaint of absence of menstrual periods for about two months. It appears, the first accused prescribed Cyclenorm drug, a combination of registrants and estrogen and asked her to comeback after 10 days. She met him on 21-11-1983 with the report that the drug had no effect. At 6.30 p.m. on that day, first accused conducted M.R. Syringe procedure as also curettage allegedly for the purpose of termination of pregnancy. She was discharged in about half-an hour. On 23-11-1983, Sobhana met the first accused and complained of severe pain in the abdomen area. She was admitted in the dispensary and kept there for two days and referred to the District Hospital, Cannan ore by the first accused on 25-11-1983 with a letter to the second accused and also a chit, Apparently, the letter has not yet been traced. Sobhana, went to Cannanore and met the second accused at his house. However, subsequently, she was admitted in Koyili Hospital, Cannanore where she was examined by two doctors of the hospital. They thought that it was a medico-legal case requiring Laprotomy. They referred her to the District Hospital, Cannanore on 26-11-1983 and she was kept under observation and examined by the second accused and other doctors. Her condition worsened and she was discharged on 27-11-1973 as her relations wanted to take her to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. She was accordingly admitted in the Medical College Hospital, on 27-11-1983. It appears, her condition was grave and sub-total historactomy was done. However, she died on 6- 12-1983. A brother of Sobhana gave information to the Police on 8-12-1983 and a case was registered as a case of unnatural death. The case was duly transferred to Balipatam Police Station. Preliminary investigation having disclosed commission of certain offences mentioned above, a report was submitted to that effect and investigation was taken over by the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore. The two accused were arrested on 3-3-1984, a Saturday. The next day, that is Sunday, bail applications were submitted to the Sessions Judge at his residence and interim bail was ordered with direction that they should stay at the premises of the Government District Hospital, Cannon are under the supervision of the D.M.O. or the Hospital Superintendent. They appeared in court the next day. Thereupon, after hearing both sides, the court modified the condition and directed the accused to stay in the Rest House, Tellicherry at their own expense under police surveillance. The petitions were ultimately disposed of on 7-3-1984. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the second accused and he was granted bail subject to the condition that he executes a bond for Rs. 10,000- and furnishes two solvent sureties in the like amount and that he shall not enter the Cannon ore Taluk or the premises of the Medical College, Cali cut until final report is filed or otherwise ordered. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there are materials to hold that the first accused has committed the various offences attributed to him and that in view of his status and position he is likely to tamper with the witnesses and obstruct the investigation. Therefore, bail was refused to him.

(3.) It was pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that after arrest on the evening on 3-3- 1984 when the two accused were taken to the Central Jail, the Jail authorities allowed them to go to the living quarters of the Jail Superintendent. The learned Sessions Judge thought that it was a matter, which required enquiry and directed the Inspector General of Prisons to submit a report regarding the same. I agree that the matter should be pursued.