STATE OF KERALA v. RANEEF

Respondent is a dental surgeon. The prosecution case is that the respondent gave medical aid to one of the wounded accused in pursuance of a previous plan that if and when any of the assailants got injured in the attack on the Professor then immediate medical treatment would be given by the respondent to the injured; and that the .respondent stitched the back of an assailant, which is not the job of a dentist. It was further alleged that the respondent was a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), a Muslim organization, and was head of its medical committee. The prosecution placed reliance on the proviso to Section 430(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which states that the accused D shall not be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. E c The instant appeal is filed against the order of High Court granting bail to the respondent. >"- .., .,., ' Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD:1. In the instant case, this Court is only considering the bail matter and not deciding whether the respondent is guilty or not. Evidence has yet to be led and the trial yet to commence. Hence the prosecution is yet to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that G the respondent was part of a conspiracy which led to the attack on the Professor. [Para 12] [596-E] " ...... . 2. The case against the respondent is very different from that against the alleged assailants. There is no H 592 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R. 8 A allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants. There is no prima facie' proof that the respond~nt was: involved in the crime. Hence the proviso to Section 43015) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has no( been violated. The respondent, being a doctor, was 'under.: the Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. Just as· it is the duty-Of a lawyer to defend an accused, so also it-. is the duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply· stitches in an emergency. Prima facie the only offence that can be leveled against the respondent is that _under c Section 202 l.P.C., that is, of omitting to give information of the crime to the police, and this offence has also to. be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 202 is a bailable offence. [Para 12) (596-F-H;' 597-A-B]

#3. As regards the allegation that the respondent D belongs to the PFI, there is no evidence as yet to prove that the P.F.I. is a terrorist organization, and hence the respondent cannot be penalized merely for belonging to the P.F.I. Moreover, even assuming that the P.F.I. is an illegal organization, this Court is yet to consider Whether E all members of the organization can be automatically held to be guilty. [Para 12) (597-B-C-E~F] ~ ""