Order.- This petition has been filed by the petitioner (Pandian) who is in remand from 13th September, 1978 for the alleged offences under sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code read with section 28 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The convention of the petitioner is, that he is an Army Officer who has retired in the year 1968 and has good character. The petitioner is also the owner of the land at Mudukulathur and he is very much respected in his village and he possesses licence for his arms. The petitioner was charged, as stated above under the aforesaid sections by the respondent and the case of the prosecution is that on 13th March, 1978 complaint was lodged by Kumarayee stating that one Valivittan and the petitioner wrongfully restrained and attempted to outrage her modesty. A case was registered under section 341 and 354, Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 214 of 1978. While investigating the said crime, it appears that the police party apprehended Valivittan and during this apprehension they saw the petitioner also who threatened the respondent with a revolver, and therefore, they left the place. Subsequently on the same day at about 8.15 p.m., the Inspector of Police accompanied by the Sub-Inspector of Police went to Malachakulam in a taxi TMC 9352 to apprehend to the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the police went to the place, they found the accused lying in a cot and. while he was being arrested, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner took out his revolver which was underneath the pillow and shot at the Inspector, but actually the Sub-Inspector Mr. Richard fell down. Seeing the petitioner having a revolver, it is the case of the prosecution that the police party ran away. The petitioner, it is not denied by the prosecution, has taken Mr. Richard, who was wounded, to the Mudukulathur hospital in the same taxi in which the police had come. Subsequently the petitioner was arrested at 10.00 p.m., and since then, he is under detention. According to the petitioner, the entire case of prosecution is false and baseless and he is innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged. Richard, who was wounded, to the Mudukulathur hospital in the same taxi in which the police had come. Subsequently the petitioner was arrested at 10.00 p.m., and since then, he is under detention. According to the petitioner, the entire case of prosecution is false and baseless and he is innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged. According to him, on the date of the offence as alleged by the prosecution, he had a undergone an operation for a carboncle and was resting in his house. 3. In the counter filed by the Deputy Inspector of Police, it is contended by the prosecution that four cases against the petitioner are pending and the prosecution strenuously opposes the release of the petitioner on bail. The contention of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an Ex-Military man and has several friends in various countries such as Ceylon, Malayasia and Singapore and if the petitioner is released, the prosecution apprehends that the petitioner will abscond or will go away to other countries without the knowledge of the police and the Government. The prosecution further contends that if the petitioner is released, he would cause danger to the life of the other police officers also and, therefore, objects to the release of the petitioner on bail. The prosecution further contends that a charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the cases have been committed to sessions and all the cases against the petitioner, as per the order of this Court, have been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Tirunelveli Sessions Court and the trial is posted to 21st June, 1979, and, therefore, contends that the petitioner should not be released on bail pending disposal of the cases. 4. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner has to be released on bail pending disposal of the case more particularly S.C.No. 42 of 1979 on the file of the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. It is not disputed by the prosecution that the petitioner was arrested and is in remand from 13th September, 1978. It is also not disputed by the prosecution that the petitioner is a retired officer of the Army and his children are well educated and one of his sons is an Advocate. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not a man of means. It cannot also be denied that the petitioner is aged 60 years. It is also not disputed by the prosecution that the petitioner is a retired officer of the Army and his children are well educated and one of his sons is an Advocate. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not a man of means. It cannot also be denied that the petitioner is aged 60 years. Whatever may be the contentions of the prosecution and the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner, we are now at this stage concerned, whether the petitioner has to be released on bail in view of the fact that the Medical Officer of the Central Prison Dispensary, Palayamcottai has given a certificate dated 7th May, 1979 which is as follows: “Herewith submitting the detailed Health condition of the Remand Prisoner Pandi Thevar S/o. Nagu Thevar; on 10th March, 1979, he was admitted into the Central Prison Hospital for the complaint of Epileptic Seizures (fits). His general condition is satisfactory except he is having several attacks of fits in a day for which he is daily and regularly getting suitable medicines. With the hospital medicines the fits are well controlled and the treatment is still continued.” 5. It is contended to by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner is afflicted with grand-mal epilepsy which results in the petitioner getting periodic bouts of fits. This statement of the petitioner’s Counsel is fortified by the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Central Prison Dispensary. When a person is suffering from fits which is not denied by the prosecution, but on the other hand, is borne out by the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, the Court has to consider whether, under such circumstances, the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail or not. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice a decision reported in Sangappa v. State of Karnataka1, wherein the question of granting bail on the ground of sickness was considered by the learned Judge. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice a decision reported in Sangappa v. State of Karnataka1, wherein the question of granting bail on the ground of sickness was considered by the learned Judge. The petitioner in that case was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure and in view of the fact the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, the learned Judge in that case, held that it cannot be said that there are no proper facilities in the District Hospital at Bidar for treating the illness of the petitioner and, therefore, under the circumstances, the learned Judge disagreed with the view of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case, and held, that since proper treatment was available in the hospital bail cannot be granted. In the instance case, the petitioner is not in the hospital, but is being attended to by the doctor of the Jail Dispensary, which Dispensary cannot be expected to have “proper facilities” to attend to the patients of this type. Therefore, the decision cited by the Public Prosecutor cannot be helpful in the instant case. 7. In this case, the petitioner is in Central Jail, Palayamcottai. The petitioner’s son, who is an Advocate of this Court, has filed an affidavit to the effect that he would undertake on behalf of his father, the petitioner herein, to abide strictly by the conditions that this Court may be pleased to impose, if the petitioner is released on bail. He has also stated in his affidavit that his father who is in jail for a long time, if not released on bail, will be very much affected in his health in view of his old age and also for want of proper and effective treatment. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also filed an affidavit duly signed by the petitioner. This affidavit has been obtained by the Counsel, from the petitioner, wherein the petitioner states, that he will stay at the resisidence his lawyer Mr.S. Chellapandian who is residing at Perumalpuram, Palayamcottai. Nothing has been alleged by the prosecution against the counsel Mr. Chellapandian in whose residence in the petitioner would stay. This affidavit has been obtained by the Counsel, from the petitioner, wherein the petitioner states, that he will stay at the resisidence his lawyer Mr.S. Chellapandian who is residing at Perumalpuram, Palayamcottai. Nothing has been alleged by the prosecution against the counsel Mr. Chellapandian in whose residence in the petitioner would stay. The petitioner has also given an undertaking in the affidavit filed by him from the Central Jail, Palayamcottai, which will form part of this order, to the effect, that he will appear at the police station, Palayamcottai as and when directed by this Court. The petitioner also undertakes to abide by the conditions that this Court would impose on him. 8. Though earlier applications to enlarge the petitioner on bail were dismissed by this Court and a direction was also given to the jail doctor to attend on the petitioner properly, but yet the certificate dated 7th May, 1979 issued by the jail doctor makes me feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. I am taking this view, for, the doctor has stated in his certificate that the petitioner is having several attacks of fits in a day for which the petitioner is being attended to regularly. He also states that the treatment is still continued. If the petitioner gets fits in the middle of the night, it is doubtful whether the petitioner will get immediate, proper and effective treatment from the jail authorities. If that being so, the other alternative is to direct the petitioner that he be admitted in the hospital. But there are several serious charges levelled against the petitioner for which the petitioner has to defend himself and has to give instructions to his Counsel. If the petitioner is admitted in the hospital, it is doubtful Whether the hospital authorities would permit the petitioner to give instructions to his Counsel to defend his case as and when be comes. The hospital authorities have also their own rules and timings for the visitors to see the patients. If the petitioner is at rest, will the hospital authorities permit the Counsel of the petitioner to interrogate the petitioner, on several questions to which the Counsel would be requiring clarifications. These are all the things that make me feel in this particular case that the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. 9. If the petitioner is at rest, will the hospital authorities permit the Counsel of the petitioner to interrogate the petitioner, on several questions to which the Counsel would be requiring clarifications. These are all the things that make me feel in this particular case that the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not doing well and more particularly when the petitioner is suffering from fits which is not completely controlled or cured by the jail authorities, it is but just and proper that this Court should release the petitioner on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor states that the case is posted to 21st June, 1979 and the trial will be over within a week from that date onwards. But it should also be noted that the petitioner was in the custody of police and is in jail from the date of his arrest and he has to make arrangements to defend his case and instruct his Counsel before 21st June, 1979 to the several charges levelled against him. 10. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties for a sum of Rs. 10,000 each, to the satisfaction of the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The petitioner immediately after his release, shall stay at the residence of his Counsel Mr.S. Chellapandian at Perumalpuram, Palayamcottai. The petitioner shall report to the Inspector of police, Perumalpuram daily at 8.00 A.m., and 6.00 p.m., until further orders of this Court, except on the days when he attends Court. The petitioner shall not go out from his lawyer’s (Chellapandian) house while at Perumalpuram, Palayamcottai at any time except with the permission of the trial Court, and that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as to dissuade such person from disclosing the facts to the Court.