The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the

instant Crime No.2344/2019 of Kayamkulam Police Station which has

been registered for the offences punishable under Secs.304A and 336 of

the IPC and Sec.37 of the Medical Practitioners Act, 1963. It is submitted

by Sri. P.Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that

though offences as per Secs.336 and 304A of the IPC are bailable

offences, going by the prescriptions in the Schedule I of the Cr.P.C.

Further that, there is no enactment called as the Medical Practitioners

Act, 1963 and that it appears that the Police would have meant

provisions contained in Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act,

1953 and Sec.37 thereof does not deal with any offence and only deal

with regulations framing power and that Sec. 38 thereof deal with

persons not registered under the said Act shall not practice etc. and

Sec.39 thereof provides the penalty for contravention of Sec.38 of the

Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. That Sec.39 thereof

stipulates that any contravention of Sec.38 shall, on conviction be

punishable with fine to an extend of Rs.100/- for the first offence and to

Rs.500/- for every subsequent offence after his conviction for such first

offence. Further that, going by the prescriptions contained in the

Schedule II of the Cr.P.C., which deals with classification of the offences

in relation to the enactments other than the IPC. Such an offence in the

nature of Sec.38 of the said Act, which is punishable under Sec. 39

thereon is also bailable offence.

2.

Accordingly, it is urged by Sri.P.Samsudin, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner that all the offences alleged against the

petitioner are only bailable offences and that the Police authorities

concerned are obliged to release the applicant on bail on his arrest and

that the petitioner has the right to approach the Jurisdictional

Magistrate court concerned under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of

bail, which the said court is obliged to grant bail as all the offences

alleged against him are bailable offences.

3.

The learned Prosecutor had taken time to get instructions

and today, submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are

those under Sec.304A and 336 of the IPC and that the submission of the

petitioner's counsel that there is no enactment called Medical

4

Practitioners Act, 1963 and the Police has actually meant to include the

penalty provision contained in Sec.38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical

Practitioners Act, 1953 is punishable under Sec. 39 thereon. Further, on

being queried, the learned Prosecutor has fairly submitted that even the

said offence as per the said Act is also a bailable offence.

4.

However, Sri.P.Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that due to the extraneous considerations, the

Police might arrest the petitioner and may detain him. Since all the

offences alleged against the petitioner are admittedly bailable offences, it

is for the petitioner to work out the remedies in accordance with the law.

Sri.P.Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused

would submit that the petitioner will be advised to approach the

Jurisdictional Magistrate court concerned under Sec.426 of the Cr.P.C.

for grant of bail as the said court is obliged to grant bail as all the

offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences. Further, the

counsel for the petitioner also would submit that the petitioner has

genuinely apprehends that due to extraneous considerations, the Police

might illegally add some non-bailable offences against the petitioner in

the above crime. This Court, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in

case the competent Police authorities concerned gets any objective

5

materials to additionally add any non-bailable offences against the

petitioner in the instant crime, then the competent Police officer

concerned shall issue prior n