Kerala High Court
Davis P R vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
1
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 427 OF 2025
CRIME NO.36/2025 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 DAVIS P R
AGED 46 YEARS
PAREKKATT, THIRUMUKKULAM, IRANIKULAM P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680734
2 LINU P V
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, PAREKKADAN, THIRUMUKKULAM,
IRANIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680734
3 SHIJU
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O DEVASSY, CHAMAKKAT VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE,
IRANIKULAM P.O., NEAR CHURCH THIRUMUKULAM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680734
4 LINSON
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, PLAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUMUKKULAM, NEAR
THIRUMUKKULAM CHURCH, KUZHUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680734
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
2
BY ADVS. BOBY THOMAS
WINSTON K.V
VIVEK P.C.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL, PIN -
680732
ADDL.R3 ABHILJITH
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.ANTON, PAREKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUMUKULAM DESOM,
THIRUMUKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL -680734
ADDL.R4 ANTONY
AGED 50 YEARS
PAREKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUMUKULAM DESOM,
THIRUMUKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL -680734
ADDL.R5 AMARJITH
AGED 20 YEARS
PAREKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUMUKULAM DESOM,
THIRUMUKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL -680734
ADDL.R6 KUSUMAM
AGED 45 YEARS
PAREKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUMUKULAM DESOM,
THIRUMUKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL -680734.
ADDL R3 TO ADDL R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 29.01.2025 IN CRL MA 1/2025 IN BA
427/2025.
BY ADVS.SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
SMT. I.SHEELA DEVI
SRI. BINESH.K.N.
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
3
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..831/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 831 OF 2025
CRIME NO.735/2024 OF Ranny Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2025 IN CRMP NO.9216
OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II,
PATHANAMTHITTA / II ADDL.M.A.C.T.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 SUNIL KUMAR H
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O HARIKUMAR, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, NEELIPILAVU
P O, CHITTAR VILLAGE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
YAMUNA HOUSE, NARANMMOOZHY P O KADUMEENCHIRA
ATHIKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PIN - 689 711
2 AKHIL AJI
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O AJI T I, OFFICE STAFF YAMUNA MOTORS RANNI,
THEKKEKARA HOUSE,NARANAMMOOZHY P O, ATHIKAYAM
VILLAGE, PIN - 689 711
3 SANJU BABY KUTTAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O BABY KUTTAN MYKULATHU HOUSE, CHETHACKAL P O,
CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PIN - 689 677
BY ADVS. ARUN ASHOK
NEENA JAMES
ANASWARA K.P.
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
5
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
RANNY POLICE STATION, RANNY PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-689672,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..427/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
6
C.R.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of February, 2025
ORDER
Destruction of property is a form of violence.
Nowadays, when criminal offences are committed, there is a
tendency to damage the private properties of the victims,
like their residential houses, household items, office items,
etc. If a physical hurt is caused, it can be cured on some
occasions by medication. But the destruction of property
can be compensated only through money. However, the
victims in criminal cases have to wait a long time to get
compensation. If damages are caused to private properties
by the assailants, can a condition be imposed to deposit the
damages assessed by the Police as a condition for granting
bail, subject to the result of the final decision in the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
investigation and also by a competent court, is the question
to be decided in this case.
2. I will narrate the facts in these bail applications
separately. BA No.427/2025 is filed by the accused in Crime
No.36/2025 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District. The
above case is registered against the petitioners alleging
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
110, 333, 324(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short, BNS). The prosecution case is that, on
04/01/2025 at about 8:30 pm, while the defacto
complainant and his brother were standing in front of their
house near the shop of his father, accused Nos.1 to 4, who
were having enmity with the defacto complainant, assaulted
the father of the defacto complainant. When the defacto
complainant intervened, the accused assaulted the defacto
complainant and his brother Amarjith using their hands.
When the defacto complainant, his brother and his father
were trying to escape from the place, the accused attacked
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
them using an iron rod and also damaged the glass of the
shop attached to the house of the defacto complainant. It is
also alleged that several glass vessels and the articles in the
shop were damaged. According to the prosecution, they
sustained a loss of about Rs. One Lakh. Hence it is alleged
that the accused committed the offence.
3. The petitioners in BA No.831/2025 are the
accused in Crime No.735/2024 of Ranny Police Station,
Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296,
333, 118(1), 115(2), 324(5), 189(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3)
and 190 of BNS. The prosecution case is that the accused,
along with two identifiable persons, trespassed into the
residence of the first informant on 05/10/2024, at 9.30 pm,
and assaulted the defacto complainant, his parents and his
brother using a weapon, like an iron rod, damaged two
motorcycles and two mobile phones, demolished walls, etc.
It is alleged that the defacto complainant sustained a loss of
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
Rs. 3,36,000/-.
4. These bail applications are filed apprehending
arrest by the petitioners in Crime No.36/2025 of Mala Police
Station and Crime No.735/2024 of Ranny Police Station.
5. As per the prosecution allegation, it is clear that,
While committing criminal offences, the petitioners also
committed mischief and the offence under Section 324(5) of
BNS is also alleged. Section 324 of BNS deals with
"mischief". Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that
he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public
or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or
any such change in any property or in the situation thereof
as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it
injuriously, commits "mischief". Section 324(2) of BNS says
that whoever commits mischief shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. Section
324(3) of BNS says that whoever commits mischief and
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the
property of Government or Local Authority shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section
324(4) of BNS says that, whoever commits mischief and
thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty
thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both. Section 324(5) of BNS says that, whoever
commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the
amount of one lakh rupees or upwards, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. Section
324(6) of BNS says that, whoever commits mischief, having
made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt,
or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of
wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
either description for a term which may extend to five years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
6. It is true that Section 324 of BNS is a bailable
offence. But, in the crimes registered in these two bail
applications, along with the offence under Section 324(5) of
BNS, the offence under Section 333 of BNS is also alleged.
Section 333 of BNS is a non-bailable offence. Section 333 of
BNS says that, whoever commits house-trespass, having
made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for
assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any
person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of
assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
7. Chapter XVII of BNS deals with the offences against
property. Section 329 to 333 of BNS deals with Criminal
trespass. Criminal trespass and house trespass are defined
in Section 329(1) and (2) of BNS respectively. Whoever
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
enters into or upon property in the possession of another
with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or
annoy any such person in possession of such property or
having lawfully entered into or upon such property,
unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate,
insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an
offence is said to commit criminal trespass as per Section
329(1) BNS. Section 329(2) BNS says that, whoever commits
criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any
building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or any
building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the
custody of property is said to commit house-trespass.
Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions
to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has
a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building,
tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to
commit lurking house-trespass as per Section 330(1) of BNS.
Section 330(2) BNS deals with housebreaking.
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
8. The question to be decided is when the offences of
house trespass which are non-bailable coupled with the
offence of serious mischief is committed, whether there can
be a direction to deposit the amount of damages for the
destruction caused to the property as a condition for
granting bail, subject to the investigation in the case and
the trial if any, by a court of law. Such a provision is not
there in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023.
9. While considering the provisions of The
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, this
Court in Hemachandran M.T. @ Kamalesh and Others
v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another [2011 (4) KHC
689] observed like this:
"24. The PDPP Act was enacted with a view to curb
acts of vandalism and damage to public property,
including destruction and damage caused during riots
and public commotion. The PDPP Act is an Act to
provide for the prevention of damage to public
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
property and for the matters connected therewith.
The Act defines "public property". S.2 (a) of the PDPP
Act provides that unless the context otherwise
requires, "mischief" shall have the same meaning as
in S.425 of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code deals with offences against
property. S.425 to 440 of the Indian Penal Code deal
with "mischief". Punishment under these Sections
vary from imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three months to a term which may extend to ten
years. Irrespective of the term of imprisonment as
punishment, all the offences under Chapter XVII of
the IPC are covered by S.437 (3) CrPC. S.5 of the
PDPP Act provides that "no person accused or
convicted of an offence punishable under S.3 or 4
shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own
bond unless the prosecution has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release. The fourth proviso to S.437 CrPC provides for
the opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor
only if the offence is punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven
years or more. S.6 of the PDPP Act states that the
provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force. The scheme of the PDPP Act
when considered along with S.437 of the Code of
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
Criminal Procedure, it would be clear that in the
matter of granting bail, a rigorous approach is
contemplated when the offences alleged are under
the PDPP Act. Such a rigorous approach is required in
the matter of imposing conditions for granting bail
also. A condition for deposit of the loss sustained to
the Government as a condition for granting bail to
the accused would be justified under S.437 and S.439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the
Supreme Court in In Re Destruction of Public &
Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2009
(2) KLT 552: 2009 (5) SCC 212, 2009 (2) KHC 374:
AIR 2009 SC 2266: 2009 (1) KLD 664: 2009 CriLJ
2807: 2009 (5) SCALE 638 would also support such a
view. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not
inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioners
that the decision in Hemanth Kumar and Others v.
Sub Inspector of Police, 2011 (4) KHC 89: 2011 (4)
KLT 288: 2011 (2) KLD 701: 2011 (4) KLJ 296: ILR
2011 (4) Ker. 261 requires reconsideration."
10. Similarly, this Court, while considering a bail
application in a case alleging offences punishable under the
provisions of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and
Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
Damage to Property) Act, 2012, after relying on the
judgment in Hemachandran's case (supra) observed like
this:
"10. Trespass and Vandalism in hospitals is a
problem faced by hospital authorities nowadays. The
reason for the same may be because of the alleged
negligence / illegal acts of the doctors, nurses, staff,
etc attached to that hospital. But, for that purpose,
the hospital building or hospital materials cannot be
destroyed. The hospitals are the temples of modern
society, where people go to worship the gods of
health and wellness. Therefore any vandalism in
hospitals should be avoided using the iron hands of
law itself. Hence, some restrictions are necessary
while granting bail in such cases also. The preamble
of Act, 2012 reads like this:
"WHEREAS, it is expedient to prohibit violence
against healthcare service persons and to prevent
damage and loss to property in healthcare service
institutions and to provide for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto;"
11. The preamble itself shows that the intention of
the legislature is the prevention of damages and loss
to property in healthcare institutions. As per S.4(4) of
the Act, 2012, any offence under sub-section (1) shall
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
be cognizable and non-bailable. That shows the
serious concern of the legislature in these types of
cases. Hence while granting bail, in cases where
offences under the Kerala Healthcare Service persons
and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of
Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 are
alleged and if any damage is caused to the
healthcare service institutions by the accused, the
courts should impose conditions in the light of the
principle laid down by this court in Hemanth Kumar
and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another
(2011 (4) KHC 89) & Hemachandran M. T. @
Kamalesh and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and
Another (2011 (4) KHC 689). If the accused are found
not guilty and they are accordingly acquitted, they
would be entitled to get refund of the amount
deposited by them. If the Court comes to the
conclusion that the accused are liable to pay any
fine / compensation, the amount in deposit can be
utilised for payment of fine / compensation. I am also
of the opinion that the legislature should consider
making appropriate amendments in Act, 2012 to
include such a condition for getting bail in these
types of cases. The Registry will forward a copy of
this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala for
appropriate action.
12. In this case, according to the prosecution, the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
damage caused to the hospital is Rs. 10,000/-.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
I think the petitioner can be released on bail with a
direction that, the petitioner shall deposit an amount
of Rs. 10,000/- before the Jurisdictional Court. If the
accused is found not guilty and is accordingly
acquitted in this case, the accused would be entitled
to get the refund of the amount deposited. If the
court comes to the conclusion that the accused is
liable to pay fine, then this amount can be utilised for
the payment of fine / compensation."
11. The Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private
Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 (for short
'Act 2019') was enacted by the State legislature in the year
2019. As per Section 2(a) of the Act 2019, the "damaging
act" means an act, causing damage or loss or destruction to
any private property due to communal riot, harthal, bandh,
demonstration, march, procession, blockade of road traffic
or similar assembly by whatever name called, committed by
an individual, group of individuals or organisation whether
social, religious or political. Section 8 of the Act 2019 deals
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
with the special provision as to bail in such cases. It will be
better to extract Section 8 of the Act 2019:
"Special provision as to Bail.- No person accused
under section 5 or section 6 shall be released on bail
on execution of bond by two sureties and depositing
in the court the amount not less than one-half the
value of the property destroyed or damaged as may
be determined by the court on the basis of police
report or on furnishing bank guarantee for the said
amount, unless the prosecution has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release."
12. Section 5 of the Act 2019 deals with the
punishment for committing a damaging act. Section 6 of
the Act 2019 deals with punishment for committing a
damaging act by fire or explosive substance. A reading of
the provisions of the Act 2019 makes it clear that the same
is applicable only if a "damaging act" caused to any private
property is due to a communal riot, harthal, bandh,
demonstration, march, procession, blockade or road traffic
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
or similar assembly by whatever name called, committed by
an individual, group of individuals or organisation whether
social, religious or political. A damaging act of private
property committed by an accused by trespassing into a
house or building will not be covered under the provisions of
the Act 2019.
13. Everyone constructs their dream house, office or
other structures using their hard-earned money. They will
also spend such money for furnishing their place,
purchasing household articles, office materials etc.
Destroying or damaging such private property is easy, but
the pain suffered by the owners of such private property is
immeasurable. The law will take some time to reach its
logical conclusion because an investigation by the police
and thereafter a trial by the court of law is necessary in
such cases. This process may take some time. However,
during the investigation, if it is revealed that the private
property is damaged by the accused by trespassing into the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
residential house, office and other buildings, I am of the
considered opinion that the court of law can direct the
accused to deposit the amount of damages as a condition
for granting bail to the assailants. It can be termed as 'Legal
Pinch' subject to the conclusion of the investigation and the
conclusion of the trial by a competent Criminal Court. After
investigation, if the Police find that there are no damages as
alleged, the accused can file an appropriate application
before the Jurisdictional Court to refund the amount.
Similarly, if a final report is filed alleging mischief, but the
court of law finds that the accused has not committed
mischief, the person who deposited the amount can claim a
refund. But, if the accused are convicted by a court of law
for the offence of mischief, the court concerned can use the
deposited amount to compensate the victims. If such a
condition is imposed at the preliminary stage itself, there is
a chance to decrease the vandalism and destruction, while
trespassing into residential houses and other buildings. As I
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
said earlier, it will be a "legal pinch" to such assailants. Just
like Section 8 in the Act 2019, I am of the considered
opinion that the legislature should seriously think as to
whether such a condition while granting bail is necessary in
cases of house-trespass and mischief in residential houses,
offices etc.
14. The above stand of this Court is justified in the
light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
Kodungallur Film Society and Another v. Union of
India and Others [2018 (5) KHC 297]. The relevant portion
of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
"c) A person arrested for either committing
or initiating, promoting, instigating or in any
way causing to occur any act of violence
which results in loss of life or damage to
property may be granted conditional bail
upon depositing the quantified loss caused
due to such violence or furnishing security for
such quantified loss. In case of more than
one person involved in such act of violence,
each one of them shall be jointly, severally
and vicariously liable to pay the quantified
loss. If the loss is yet to be quantified by the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
appropriate authority, the judge hearing the
bail application may quantify the amount of
tentative damages (which shall be subject to
final determination thereof by the
appropriate authority) on the principle stated
in paragraph 15 of the decision in In Re:
Destruction of Public and Private Properties
(supra), after hearing the submissions of the
State/agency prosecuting the matter in that
regard."
15. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmesh @
Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai
Bhagubhai Ratadia and Another v. State of Gujarat
[2021 KHC OnLine 6302] observed like this:
"17. We may hasten to add that we are not
saying that no monetary condition can be
imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are
cases of offences against property or otherwise
but that cannot be a compensation to be
deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to
take place as a condition of the person being
enlarged on bail."
16. During the course of arguments, this court
requested the Senior Counsel Advocate P. Vijayabhanu to
address this court on this subject. Senior Counsel agreed
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
that, such conditions will definitely give a message to the
society, but requested this court to consider the Dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in Ramratan @ Ramaswaroop
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2024 SC 5518) and
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi ((2023) 7
SCC 461). This court considered the dictum in Ramratan's
case (supra). That was a case in which bail conditions were
imposed which led to deprivation of civil rights of the
parties. In Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), the Apex Court
deprecated cash deposit in bail conditions, in Section 420
IPC cases. Apex Court observed that it will transform into
the process of recovery of the quantum of money allegedly
cheated, which is not the duty of the criminal court. Those
dictums are not applicable here. Moreover, a three-bench
decision of the Apex Court in Kodungallur Film Society's
case (supra) observed that, in property damages cases,
such a bail condition is possible, which I extracted in
paragraph 14 of this judgement.
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
17. This court is aware of the golden words of
Honourable Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer: "To be poor, in this land
of daridra narayana, is no crime and to recover debts by the
procedure of putting one person in prison is flagrantly
violative of Article 21 of the constitution" (See Jolly George
Varghese and Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin ((1980)
2 SCC 360). The Apex Court said this about four decades
back. Being a vandal by destroying the hard-earned
properties of Daridra Narayana is, of course, a crime.
Assailants should understand the sadness of people who
suffered vandalism due to the destruction of their hard-
earned dwelling house, household articles etc. As I
mentioned earlier, if a "legal pinch" is given to such
assailants at the bail stage itself, the tendency to destroy
will decrease and a message will be sent to society. In
appropriate cases, the court can relax the deposit of the
amount of damage. But sufficient reason should be given.
Keeping in mind, the golden words of Honourable Justice
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
V.R. Krishna Iyer, which I extracted earlier and also
considering the plights of such victims, the court can pass
appropriate orders. But it should be a speaking order. In
other words, deposit is the rule and non-deposit is the
exception.
18. In the light of the above principle, I am of the
considered opinion that, if an offence of house trespass
which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is
committed, the Court can direct the accused to deposit the
amount of damages/half of the amount or even double the
amount of damages as a condition for granting bail. The
deposited amount will be subject to the investigation and
trial, if any. If the accused is exonerated in the police
investigation, the accused can file an application before the
Jurisdictional Court to get back the amount deposited at the
time of granting bail. Similarly, if the accused is acquitted by
the court of law, the accused can get back the amount
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
deposited as a condition for bail. But, if the accused is
convicted for such offences, the amount deposited can be
directed to be disbursed to the victim in accordance with
law.
19. Coming back to the facts of the case, in B.A.
No.831/2025, the offences alleged include Sections 333 and
324(5) of BNS. The mischief committed as per the report is
Rs.3,36,000/-. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
exact damage caused to the property was not assessed by
the Investigating Officer. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think at least half of the
damages claimed by the defacto complainant can be
directed to be deposited by the accused in this case. There
are four accused in this case, the petitioners in this bail
application are accused Nos.1 to 3. If that is the case, each
of the petitioners can be directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.45,000/- as a condition for granting the bail. It is true
that the allegation against the petitioner includes the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
offences under Section 118(1) of the BNS, which is also non-
bailable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after
imposing stringent conditions including a deposit of an
amount of Rs.45,000/- each by the petitioners.
20. As far as B.A No.427/2025 is concerned, an
objection is filed by respondents No.3 to 6 who are the
victims in this case. In this case, the offence alleged
includes Sections 333, 324(5) and 118(1) of BNS. The
damage alleged to be caused is assessed as Rs.1 lakh.
There are four accused in this case. In such circumstances, I
think there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit
an amount of Rs.25,000/- each as a condition to grant bail.
In this case also, the offence under section 118(1) BNS is
alleged. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after
imposing appropriate conditions.
21. I make it clear that the amount deposited by the
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
petitioners in these bail applications will be subject to the
outcome of the investigation and also the final decision of
the court of law, if the final report is filed. If the petitioners
are exonerated by the police after investigation, the
petitioners can claim the deposited amount from the
jurisdictional court. Similarly, if the petitioners are acquitted
by the court of law after trial, the petitioners can get back
the amount from the court concerned by filing an
appropriate application. However, if the petitioners are
convicted for the offence of mischief, the court can utilise
this amount to pay compensation to the victims.
Therefore, these bail applications are allowed in the
following manner:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within four weeks from
today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
be released on bail on executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioners shall
cooperate with the investigation and shall
not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which they are suspected.
6. The petitioners in B.A. No.427 of 2025 shall
deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each and the
petitioners in B.A. No. 831 of 2025 shall
deposit an amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees
Forty Five Thousand only) each before the
jurisdictional court and produce the receipt
before the Investigating Officer at the time of
surrender. The deposited amount will be
subject to the investigation in the case and
also subject to the final decision of the court
of law.
7. Needless to mention, it would be well within
the powers of the investigating officer to
investigate the matter and, if necessary, to
effect recoveries on the information, if any,
2025:KER:9541
Bail Appl. Nos.427 & 831 of 2025
given by the petitioners even while the
petitioners are on bail as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020
(1) KHC 663].
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by
the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the
bail, if any of the above conditions are
violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV/NJV/AMR/DM
