Laly James vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The above captioned application seeking anticipatory bail is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “Code†for short) by

the sole accused in Crime No.234 of 2021 of the Thrissur Town West Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 506 of the IPC,

Sections 4(2)(e), 4(2)(f) and 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Health Service Persons and

Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Property) Act, 2012.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is an elected Councillor of the Division no.45 of the Thrissur Corporation. The de facto complainant is a

Doctor in the Psychiatry Department of the Thrissur Government Medical Health Centre. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.03.2021, at about

10.45 am the petitioner trespassed inside the duty room of the de facto complainant without following COVID protocol and abused the Doctor. It is

alleged that the petitioner by her acts deterred the de facto complainant from discharging her official duty.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was requested by the sister of a mentally challenged person to

accompany her to the hospital to enquire about his whereabouts. When the petitioner tried to enquire about the man, the informant got perturbed and

flew into a rage. It is contended that no incident of the nature alleged had taken place. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner

is an elected Councilor with no criminal antecedents

The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner had entered the room and by her questionable

acts the functioning of the hospital was adversely affected

The de facto complainant has entered appearance through Adv.P.Sreekumar. The learned counsel supported the submission of the learned Public

Prosecutor. It is submitted that though the petitioner had denigrated the doctor by calling his caste name, the provisions of the SCST Act were not

incorporated by the police. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and has filed a complaint to

redress her grievance.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. From the records it appears that the specific allegation against

the petitioner is that she had trespassed into the duty room of the Doctor and picked up an altercation with the Doctor. There is no case for the

prosecution that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents or that she has committed any mischief or used force. In the facts and

circumstances, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the lady is required for an effective investigation in the instant case.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall

undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or

till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii) She 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) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

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.