The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.121/2018 of the Perinthalmanna police station under Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 IPC and also under Section 3 read with 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They seek the protection of pre-arrest bail envisaged under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the event of arrest by the police in the case.

2. The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows: On 20.01.2018, at about 06.30 hours, a patient by name Irshad was admitted in the M.E.S Medical College, Perinthalmanna for treatment of appendicitis. Before, admitting him in the hospital, the de facto complainant, who was the duty doctor in the casualty ward, had examined him. At about 15.15 hours on the same day, the father and the brother of the patient (the first and the second accused) reached the nursing section of the ward in which he was admitted and abused the de facto complainant. They threatened him that if surgery to the patient was not conducted within half an hour, they would not allow him to leave the hospital alive. The second accused caught hold of the collar of the shirt of the de facto complainant and grabbed the stethoscope from his neck and beat him with the stethoscope. The first accused beat and hit him on the chest with his hand. The de facto complainant fell down. He lost his stethoscope. He was not able to continue his duty in the hospital.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the patient was admitted in the hospital due to acute appendicitis and he was under excruciating pain but surgery was not conducted and no other treatment was also given to him. Learned counsel also submitted that the accused requested the duty doctor to discharge the patient so that he could be taken to some other hospital but the request so made was also not heeded to and then, only a commotion occurred. Learned counsel would further submit that the first accused was not in the hospital at the time of the incident and he has been falsely implicated in the case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that attack on the doctors and other hospital staff cannot be viewed lightly and if pre-arrest bail is granted, it would give a wrong message to the society.

5. The non-bailable offence alleged against the accused is under Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:

“3. Prohibition of violence. — Any act of violence against healthcare service persons or damage or loss to property in a healthcare service institution is hereby prohibited.”

6. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:

“4. Penalty and other consequence for violation of section 3. — (1) Any offender who commits any act in contravention of Section 3, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.

(2) In addition to the punishment specified in sub-section (1), the offender shall be liable to pay to the healthcare service institution a compensation of twice the amount of purchase price of medical equipment damaged and the loss caused to the property as may be determined by the Court trying the offence.

(3) If the offender has not paid the compensation under sub-section (2), the said sum shall be recovered under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (15 of 1968), as if it were an arrear of land revenue due from him.

(4) Any offence committed under Section 3 shall be cognizable and non-bailable”.

7. The definitions given under Section 2 of the Act may also be noticed.

“2. Definitions. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “healthcare service institutions” mean all institution