IMPORTANT POINT
Bail conditions in cases of vandalism to healthcare institutions must include deposit of damage costs to ensure accountability and discourage further offenses.

ORDER :

1. A hospital building is not just a physical structure, but a symbol of hope and healing for those who enter its doors. Any vandalism in hospitals should be dealt by the police seriously and the judiciary will be very vigilant in those cases. This is a case in which the accused trespassed in to a hospital and damaged a portion of the hospital. This Bail Application is filed by the accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 1889 of 2024 of Vizhinjam Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 333, 118(1), 324(5), 296(b) of BNS and 3, 4(1), 4(2) of Kerala Healthcare Service persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2012 (For short Act 2012). Petitioner was arrested on 07.12.2024 and he is in custody.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 07.12.2024, at 07.30 PM the accused criminally trespassed into the Ayurveda Hospital situated at Mukkola and uttered obscene words against the staff of the said hospital and hit on the front glass of the said hospital with iron rod and destroyed it and caused injury to the staffs of the aforementioned hospital and also threw flower pots of the said institution and broken it and thus, the accused caused a loss of Rs.10,000/-to the hospital. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offences.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 07.12.2024. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this court grants him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, the petitioner trespassed into an Ayurveda Hospital and committed damages in the hospital to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

7. This Court considered the contentions of both the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

8. While considering a bail application in connection with the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 this Court observed that in cases in which the offence under the PDPP Act is alleged, the value of the destroyed property or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail to them. I am of the considered opinion that while considering the bail application in cases in which the offences under the Kerala Healthcare Service persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012, is alleged, this Court can adopt the same principle. This Court in Hemanth Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another, 2011 (4) KHC 89 observed that:

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.

9. In Hemachandran M.T. @ Kamalesh and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another, 2011 (4) KHC 689 this Court observed that:

“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 prevention of damage to public property and for the matters connected therewith. The Act defines “public property.” S.2 (a) of the PDPP Act provides that