Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Davis P.R. and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
Bail Appl. No.427 of 2025,
Bail Appl. No.831 of 2025
Decided on 5.2.2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail applications – Case registered against petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 333, 324(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 324 of BNS is a bailable offence – But, in crimes registered in these bail applications, along with offence under Section 324(5) of BNS, offence under Section 333 of BNS is also alleged – Section 333 of BNS is a non-bailable offence – If an offence of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is committed, Court can direct accused to deposit amount of damages/half of amount or even double amount of damages as a condition for granting bail – Deposited amount will be subject to investigation and trial – If accused is exonerated in police investigation, accused can file application before Jurisdictional Court to get back amount deposited at the time of granting bail – Similarly, if accused is acquitted by court of law, accused can get back amount deposited as a condition for bail – But, if accused is convicted for such offences, amount deposited can be directed to be disbursed to victim in accordance with law. (Para 18)
Result: Bail Applications allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the court has clarified the following key points regarding bail conditions in cases involving offences of house trespass coupled with mischief:
When an offence of house trespass, which is a non-bailable offence, is committed along with mischief, the court may impose a condition for the accused to deposit an amount equivalent to damages, half of the damages, or even double the damages as a condition for granting bail. This deposited amount will be kept subject to further investigation and trial proceedings (!) .
If the accused are exonerated during police investigation or are acquitted by the court, they are entitled to claim back the deposited amount by filing an application before the appropriate court (!) (!) .
Conversely, if the court finds the accused guilty and convicts them, the deposited amount can be directed to be disbursed to the victim as per law (!) .
The court has the discretion to impose such a deposit condition considering the nature of the offence, particularly when offences involve serious mischief coupled with house trespass, which are non-bailable (!) .
The court emphasized that while imposing such conditions, the deposit should be justified and made with proper reasons, and the order should be a speaking order to ensure transparency and fairness (!) .
The court also noted that the amount deposited is not a penalty but a safeguard during the investigation and trial, intended to serve as a "legal pinch" to prevent vandalism and destruction, and to provide a measure of security for the victims (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the law permits imposing such deposit conditions to balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect victims and maintain public order, especially in cases involving property damage and violence (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific case at hand, the court directed that each accused deposit a specified amount (Rs.45,000/- for each in one case and Rs.25,000/- for each in another) as a condition for bail, with the understanding that these amounts are subject to the final outcome of the investigation and trial (!) (!) .
The court clarified that if the accused comply with the bail conditions, including the deposit, they must appear before the investigating officer, cooperate with the investigation, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. Any violation of these conditions can lead to cancellation of bail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The deposited amounts are intended to be a temporary safeguard, and the final legal determination will govern whether the amounts are refunded or utilized for compensation to victims (!) .
These points reflect the court's approach to balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of victims and public order, especially in cases involving serious property damage and non-bailable offences.
ORDER
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.—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 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 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 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 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 com
If an offence of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is committed, Court can direct accused to deposit amount of damages/half of amount or even double amount of damag....
The court established that bail can be granted with conditions requiring the deposit of damages for property destruction, emphasizing accountability and deterrence against vandalism.
Bail conditions in cases of vandalism to healthcare institutions must include deposit of damage costs to ensure accountability and discourage further offenses.
Bail granted based on insufficient evidence for continued detention while imposing conditions for release.
Court grants bail under specific conditions despite allegations, citing insufficient grounds for continued detention.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are met, ensuring fair trial rights.
Grant of bail – Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective – While deciding bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of Court to decide civil disputes as bet....
Granting bail under stringent conditions based on the period of detention, the extent of loss caused to the victims, and the possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution ....
Grant of Pre-arrest bail (Anticipatory bail) – Conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive – Tests for grant of anticipatory bail are well delineated and stand recognize....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
