Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raji R vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 316 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 316 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 January, 2023

Kerala High Court
Raji R vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2023
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
     WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 10463 OF 2022
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

     1      RAJI R,AGED 52 YEARS
            THOPPIL VEEDU,SREE SARAVANA NAGAR- 273,
            ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691011

     2      RAVEENA R,AGED 22 YEARS,THOPPIL VEEDU,
            SREE SARAVANA NAGAR- 181,ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -
            691011

     3      SUDHARMMA K,AGED 58 YEARS,THOPPIL VEEDU,
            SREE SARAVANA NAGAR- 181,ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -
            691011

            BY ADVS.
            HARIKRISHNAN M.S.
            SHAKTHI PRAKASH
            K.DHRUV KUMAR


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,
            KOLLAM, PIN - 691011


OTHER PRESENT:

            PP - M.C.ASHI


     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.10463 of 2022                    2

                 VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
               -------------------
              B.A. No.10463 of 2022
          -----------------------------
    Dated this the 11th day of January, 2023

                                  ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1781 of

2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam

registered alleging commission of offences

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala

Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service

Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to

Property) Act, 2012 and Sections 353, 448 and 34 of

IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the

accused persons, who had an animosity towards the

defacto complainant, a Government Doctor, as he had

refused to give them the medicines as demanded,

acted with the common intention to obstruct the

discharge of official duties of the defacto

complainant and barged into the Eravipuram Health

Centre at around 9.30 am on 19.12.2022 and spoke to

him rudely, and thereby committed the aforesaid

offences.

4. The petitioners submit that they have been

falsely implicated in the above said crime. The

petitioners further submit that the 3rd petitioner

is a patient and undergoing treatment for kidney

related ailments. The petitioners were admitted in

NS Hospital Kollam from 12.11.2022 to 18.12.2022.

As the medicines prescribed were not affordable to

the petitioners, they were referred to the

Eravipuram Health Centre to undergo post-discharge

medication. When they visited the Eravipuram

Health Centre in the first week of December, the

defacto complainant prescribed to the 3rd petitioner

to take one dosage of Erythropoietin injection I.P

4000 IU per week. Accordingly, the first dosage

was administered on 12.12.2022. When the

petitioners visited the Health Centre on 19.12.2022

for the second dosage, the nurse, namely Kavitha,

requested the doctor to not provide the dosage to

the 3rd petitioner, for opaque reasons best known to

her. The defacto complainant listening to the said

request, denied to provide the dosage. When the

petitioners requested the defacto complainant to

provide the reasons why the dosage is being denied,

he abused them in English and ordered them to get

out. When the petitioners informed that they will

report the unpleasant experience to the District

Medical Officer, the defacto complainant threatened

to file a false complaint against them. Thereupon,

the 3rd petitioner preferred a complaint before the

District Medical Officer, against the defacto

complainant as Annexure-2.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon

instructions submitted that, the petitioners have

obstructed the official duty of the defacto

complainant and spoke to him rudely.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, and nature of the allegations, I am of

the opinion that custodial interrogation is not

required for the purpose of investigation and only

a limited custody be granted for the same. I am

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners, but on stringent conditions. The above

bail application is allowed with the following

directions. The petitioners shall surrender before

the investigating officer on 18.01.2023. In the

event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.1781

of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, they shall be

produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on

the same day and be released on bail on the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1781 of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, on every Saturday at 11 am, for a month and thereafter, as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence;

(iv) The petitioners shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(v) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated,

the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1781 of 2022

of Eravipuram Police Station, may file an

application before the jurisdictional court for

cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that it is within the power of

the police to investigate the matter and if

necessary to effect recoveries on the information

if any given by any of the petitioners even when

the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of

the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v.

State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC

663).

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE pm

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter