Granting Anticipatory Bail In Cases Of Attacks Against Doctors Would Lead To 'Dangerous Situation': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person who had attacked a doctor who examined his wife, alleging that the Doctor had misbehaved towards her. The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen was of the view that granting anticipatory bail in such a case would lead to a 'dangerous situation', whereby doctors, who are duty bound to treat patients as part...
The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person who had attacked a doctor who examined his wife, alleging that the Doctor had misbehaved towards her.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen was of the view that granting anticipatory bail in such a case would lead to a 'dangerous situation', whereby doctors, who are duty bound to treat patients as part of their oath, would not get protection and the the proper maintenance of health of the public at large would also be in peril.
"Doctors, who had turmoiled their energy and time to learn the method of treating patients, when examining patients clinically, they cannot do the said exercise without touching the patients. If a patient, who wants treatment, is aggrieved in the matter of touch on the body of the petitioner as part of examination, it is difficult for a doctor to do his medical profession by resorting to clinical examination. The same would include placing of Stethoscope on the left chest portion of the patient to observe and evaluate the heart beat. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that all allegations on the ground of misbehaviour by overstepping the limit of the doctor while examining patients are false. Genuine cases of such nature could not be ruled out in toto. But generally, it could be held that truth of those allegations should be evaluated from the materials and attending circumstances to separate the grain from the chaff," the Court said.
The prosecution case was that the complainant, who is a doctor and doing on-call duty at the time, had examined the wife of the accused person. While so, the accused slapped the doctor on his cheek, alleging that the latter had touched the body of the accused's wife. The petitioner was therefore alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. It is in this context that the petitioner accused has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail.
It was contended by counsels for the petitioner that he was innocent in the case, and that the allegations against him were false. It was averred that the doctor had misbehaved towards the wife of the petitioner/accused, and for which, a complaint had been lodged by the latter against him, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, for which the investigation was ongoing. The counsels thus submitted that, "this case was registered as a counterblast to avoid legal consequence, which would arise out of the case lodged by the wife of the accused".
On the other hand, the Senior Public Prosecutor P.G. Manu refuted the same, and argued that the petitioner, who had criminal antecedents, and was already in four crimes, had manhandled the doctor while the latter was examining his wife, on the allegation that he touched her body. It was further contended that attacks against doctors were now on high alarm and they were thus under threat and fear, apprehending their implication in crimes, while doing their duty by clinically examining patients. "Therefore, threat against doctors would be detrimental to the interest of people at large. Thus it is submitted that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, where prosecution allegations are well made out," the Senior Public Prosecutor submitted.
The Court in this case perused the records along with the scene mahazar and the statements of the witnesses, to ascertain that the prosecution case was well made out.
"Be it so, the allegation of misbehaviour at the option of the doctor, that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, alleged to be committed in the presence of two sisters and in an open space at the casualty of the hospital cannot be believed prima facie. It is relevant to note further that the allegation of misbehaviour was raised, after registration of this crime," the Court added in this regard.
It is in this context that the Court arrived at the finding that attack against the doctor at the instance of the petitioner was well made out, and grant of anticipatory bail in such cases would lead to a dangerous situation. It added that in such cases, arrest and custodial interrogation would be 'necessary to accomplish successful investigation and eventful prosecution'.
"Therefore, in such cases, grant of anticipatory bail, when prima facie the offences are made out, would not only spoil the investigation but would lead to traumatic situation. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition," the Court held while dismissing the anticipatory bail application.
Advocates J.R. Prem Navaz, Sumeen S., and Muhammed Swadiq appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Case Title: Jamshid P.V. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 104