The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.656 of 2018 registered at the Mannarkkad Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 r/w 149 of the IPC and 3(2) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

2. The applicants were arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 6.10.2018 and they remain in custody. They seek regular bail.

3. The prosecution records reveal that disciplinary action was initiated by the Principal of the MES College, Kalladi, Mannarkkad against certain students for indulging in ragging and for collecting money without receipts. This was questioned by a group of students owing allegiance to a particular students organisation. The Principal, however, did not budge to their strong arm tactics. Instead of pursuing their grievance in a legal manner, the accused Nos.1 to 5 formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the college premises and went on a rampage at noon on 28.09.2018. They destroyed glass panes of about 75 windows and brought down the notice boards installed in the college campus. The Public Address microphone and equipments, two computer monitors, two desktop computes, LED display boards and a modem were destroyed. They then targeted their attention to two cars which were parked inside the college, one of which was of the college Principal. After causing wanton destruction, they left the campus. The Principal of the college gave a statement to the Station House Officer of the Mannarkkad Police Station, who registered the crime. In his statement, the informant also stated that the college had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition seeking Police Protection and the applicants herein were arrayed as the party respondents in the Writ Petition. There was an order directing the applicants not to enter the college campus or to cause any interference in the academic activities. It was by violating the directions of this Court that they had entered the college campus and unleashed mayhem.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent. According to the learned counsel, the agitation was conducted by the students of the college against the refusal of the Principal in initiating action against a teacher, who had sexually harassed a student. This issue was taken up by the college union of the party to which the applicants owe allegiance. According to the learned counsel, the applicants were roped in solely because they were the respondents in the Writ Petition and as they occupy leadership position in the college union. The learned counsel urges that the agitation was peaceful and no loss was caused. It is further submitted that the applicants were arrested on 6.10.2018 and having regard to the long period of incarceration undergone by them, it is only just and proper that they be released on bail. The learned counsel would also contend that the only non bailable offence alleged against the applicants are under Act 3 of 1984, but the said penal provision would not have any application in the instant case as the property allegedly destroyed cannot be categorised as public property as defined under S.2(b) of the Act. The learned counsel would then place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2018 SC 980] and contended that a humane attitude is required to be adopted while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody, more so, when the accusations against them remain in the realm of accusations.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. It is submitted that the applicants herein are not even students of the college in question and they had no business to enter inside the college campus, unleash violence and cause destruction. He also referred to the peremptory orders passed by this Court restraining the pa