Ajesh vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9143 Ker

   Crl.MC.1634/2021                 1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      Crl.MC.No.1634 OF 2021(D)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 158/2021 DATED 12-02-2021 OF
       ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM

 CRIME NO.92/2021 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam


PETITIONER/S:

                AJESH
                AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O.KUNHAPPAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPARAIYARAM
                P.O., MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
                DISTRICT-685 608.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
                SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
                SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
                SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
                SHRI.STEPHY K REGI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

      2         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682
                018, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.


OTHER PRESENT:

                PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
    Crl.MC.1634/2021                    2




                              V.G.ARUN, J.
               -----------------------------------------------
                     CRL.M.C.No. 1634 of 2021
               -----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021

                                ORDER

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.92 of 2021 of the

Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered for offences

punishable under Sections 451, 353, 294(b) and 341 read with 34 of

IPC and Section 3(2)(c) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, 1984. The petitioner, along with other accused, is alleged to have

vandalised a BEVCO outlet at 8.30 p.m on 7.2.2021, on being informed

that beer was out of stock at the outlet. It is alleged that the accused

trespassed into the outlet, assaulted the employees and broke some

beer bottles. The petitioner was arrested on 9.2.2021 and by Annexure

A2, he was granted bail subject to certain conditions. As per condition

No.2 in Annexure A2, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.50,000/-.

The said direction was issued in the light of the submission of the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the monetary loss caused by

the accused was assessed at Rs.50,000/-. By Annexure A3, the 1 st

accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The

learned Sessions Judge took note of the further statement made by the

de facto complainant that only three bottles of liquor were damaged

and the loss was only Rs.3,170/- and that, even as per the version of

the de facto complainant, it was the 2nd accused who had caused

damage. Hence, anticipatory bail was granted to the 1 st accused

without insisting for any deposit being made.

2. This Crl.M.C is filed praying to delete condition No.2 in

Annexure A2 order, based on the submission of the de facto

complainant himself that the damage caused is to the tune of

Rs.3,170/- only and that too, by the 2nd accused alone.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner

having failed to comply with condition No.2 in Annexure A2, is still

languishing in custody. It is submitted that unless the onerous

condition is lifted the petitioner will lose the benefit of Annexure A2

bail order.

4. It is evident from a reading of Annexure A3 that the damage

has been assessed at Rs.3,170/-. Going by the decision of this Court in

Hemachandran M.T @ Kamalesh and Others v. S.I. of Police

and Another [2011(4) KHC 698], the court can impose the condition

of deposit of the amount of loss sustained due to the destruction of

public property. As far as the instant case is concerned, the de facto

complainant has admitted that the loss sustained is Rs.3,170/- only

and that the damage was caused by the 2 nd accused. In such

circumstances, the direction to deposit Rs.50,000/- as a condition for

releasing the petitioner on bail cannot be sustained.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by deleting condition No.2 in

Annexure A2. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his complying

with the other conditions in Annexure A2 order.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 08.02.2021 IN CR.NO.92 OF 2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 IN CRL.MP NO.158 OF 2021 ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING FROM CR.NO.92 OF 2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 IN CRL.MC NO.340 OF 2021 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING FROM CR.NO.92 OF 2021 OF ERNKAULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.