SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
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 : 05-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Boby Thomas, Winston K.V, Vivek P.C., Arun Ashok Neena James Anaswara K.P.
For the Respondent: Sri. Noushad K.A., Sr.PP Smt. I.Sheela Devi Sri. Binesh.K.N., Sri. Hrithwik C.S., Sr.PP

The court established that bail can be granted with conditions requiring the deposit of damages for property destruction, emphasizing accountability and deterrence against vandalism.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 333, 324(5) - Bail applications concerning destruction of property and violence - Court addresses the imposition of conditions for bail related to damages caused during criminal acts. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 19)

(B) Legal Principle - The court recognizes that destruction of property is a form of violence and discusses the need for conditions on bail to deter vandalism. (Paras 1, 13)

(C) Legal Framework - The court examines the applicability of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019, in determining bail conditions. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The bail applications involve allegations of assault and property damage, with claims of losses amounting to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3,36,000 respectively. The accused are charged under various sections of the BNS for violent acts and mischief. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court allows bail with conditions, including the deposit of amounts as a safeguard against potential damages, emphasizing the need for accountability in cases of property destruction. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: The main issues addressed include whether bail can be granted with conditions related to the deposit of damages for property destruction and the implications of such conditions on the accused. (Paras 8, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that imposing a deposit for damages as a condition for bail is justified to deter vandalism and protect victims, aligning with precedents that support such measures in property damage cases. (Paras 18, 19)

Result: Bail applications allowed with conditions for deposit of damages. (Para 21)

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 commit

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top