The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre- arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1384/2023 of the Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37 r/w Section 36 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2011 and Section 26 and 27 of the Kerala Clinical Establishment (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2018.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused without any recognized qualification or registration of the Medical Council, exhibited the board of Dr.Deepak, BAMS, with an intention to cheat the public, and was conducting ophthalmology treatment at her house at Panamkulam. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

4. Heard Sri.T.K. Asokan (Therlli), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.

Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. The petitioner is only the landowner of the house where the clinic was conducted by two Ayurvedic doctors named Dr. Deepak and Dr. Arjun. The petitioner has not committed any crime. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contented that after the two doctors had left, the petitioner referred dishonestly projected herself as a doctor and ran the clinic. It was on receipt of a complaint that the police knew that the petitioner was running the clinic and treating patients. It is revealed from the investigation that the petitioner has kept a board and also had printed visiting cards in her name projecting herself as a doctor. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. The recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre- arrest bail, it would hamper with the full and proper investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, without any qualification, license, or permission, projected herself as a doctor and ran an eye clinic, and cheated the public.

8. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to