Obstruction of healthcare workers from discharging duty grave, non-bailable offence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that obstruction of healthcare workers from discharging their duties, even in the absence of any physical assault, is a grave, non-bailable offence under the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 (the Healthcare Act) [Arun P v State of Kerala]..Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the legislative intent behind the enactment was to curb all forms of violence against healthcare providers."The definition of the word 'violence' in Section 2(e) is enacted with the objective of giving the term the widest amplitude possible....every harm, intimidation, obstruction or hindrance to a healthcare service person, in discharge of duty is treated as violence" Section 3 of the Healthcare Act prohibits violence against healthcare service persons and is made non-bailable as per section 4(4) of the Act. The intention of the legislature is unambiguous. Any act of intimidation or obstruction or hindrance to a healthcare service person must be curbed," the Court observed in its order..Therefore, the Court held that the objective behind the Act and the wide meaning ascribed to the word 'violence' cannot be ignored while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. "The statute regards even an obstruction or hindrance, if committed on a healthcare person as a grave offence. Thus, it cannot be held that absence of an assault on the doctor entails a person accused of an offence under the Healthcare Act to be released on pre-arrest bail," the order stated..The order was passed in an anticipatory bail application moved by a man who had been charged for allegedly threatening and restraining a doctor while she was on duty.He was booked for offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) , 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4(1) of the Healthcare Act.Advocate R Sreehari, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail since the allegations in the first information report (FIR) only revealed a minor offence, especially since no injury or assault had taken place.On the other hand, Public Prosecutor KA Noushad, pointed out that even though the offences under the IPC are bailable, those under the Healthcare Act are not. .The Court concurred with the Public Prosecutor, opining that for the Healthcare Act to achieve its purpose of protecting healthcare workers and infrastructure, the Court must bear in mind the wide definition of the term 'violence'.Any failure to do so could have large scale public implications in terms of deteriorating health services."A physician with trepidation, a surgeon with trembling hands and a disquiet nurse can lead to wrong diagnosis, failed surgeries and improper nursing care. Life of several patients could fall into peril. Consequently, the public at large can become prejudiced", the Court opined..In line with its interpretation of the legislative mandate, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. .[Read Order]