ORDER :

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.219/2022 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) r/w. Section 3(2)(e) [presumably wrongfully mentioned as Section 4(2)(e)] of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’).

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.3.2022 at 00.55 mid-night, the petitioner set ablaze a temporary shed in which a plastic cleaning unit of the Sakthikulangara Fishing Harbour. It was alleged that, on account of the petitioner's acts, a loss of Rs.8 lakhs was sustained to the Harbour Engineering Department. The petitioner was arrested on 10.4.2022 and was remanded to judicial custody. The application submitted by the petitioner for bail was allowed by the Principal Sessions Court, Kollam, as per order dated 11.5.2022 in Crl.M.C.No.914/2022. One of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge was to furnish cash security of Rs.8 lakhs before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam for releasing him on bail. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid order to the extent of imposing cash security as mentioned above.

3. Heard Sri.Sasith M.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner is a layman who has no means to pay a considerable amount of Rs.8 lakhs as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. It was also pointed out that, he is a person diagnosed with HIV positive and is undergoing treatment. In such circumstances, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the aforesaid condition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would rely upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Hemanth Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another [2011 (4) KHC 89]. It was pointed out that as per the principles laid down therein, the furnishing of cash security is a mandatory condition to be imposed while releasing a person accused of the offence under the PDPP Act. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of this Crl.M.C.

6. It is true that, in Hemanth Kumar’s case (supra), this Court specifically highlighted the necessity to impose conditions to furnish cash security before the trial court for releasing a person accused of the offence punishable under the PDPP Act. The relevant observations of this Court are as follows:

“8. I am of the view that in cases where public property is destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail to them. Otherwise, the loss sustained to the State would not be realised at all. Courts cannot be mute spectators to the wanton destruction of public property. Nobody should be allowed to destroy public property and claim success of the strikes on the basis of the quantum of loss sustained to the State. It is easy to destroy; but it is not so easy to make.”

9. 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, the amount in deposit can be utilised for payment of fine.”

7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid order would reveal that such a condition was imposed considering the destruction of public properties that usually occur during strikes and agitations organized by various organizations and political parties. The aforesaid condition was included with an intention to create a deterrent effect upon the organizations which convene/conduct such strikes and agitations as part of their protest.

8. However, the factual circumstances existing in this case are entirely different from the above case. In this case, the offence is allegedly committed by the petitioner not as part of any strik