Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 1000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J.
K.K. Shaji – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 5613 of 2026
Decided On : 17-07-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, Adv.
Other Present : Public Prosecutor Sri. Devadas H. Mallan
Bail conditions requiring deposit of compensation must be applied with independent judicial discretion. Courts must first establish a prima facie case and verify damage assessments rather than mechanically imposing financial burdens, ensuring the right to liberty is not rendered illusory by prohibitive and arbitrary conditions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 447 and 149 - Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 - Section 8 - Bail - Condition for deposit of compensation - Statutory provision for mandatory deposit on damage to private property does not permit automatic or mechanical imposition of financial conditions - Criminal courts must apply independent judicial discretion while evaluating bail applications - Necessity to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the occurrence of an offence and the accuracy of damage quantification before insisting on monetary deposits as a bail condition. (Paras 8, 15, 17)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Liberty of the individual - Bail jurisprudence - Conditions imposed for the grant of bail must not be so stringent or disproportionate that they render the right to bail illusory - Discretion in imposing financial conditions must be exercised in a humane, non-punitive, and purpose-driven manner to avoid infringement of fundamental rights. (Paras 18, 21, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were accused of causing damage to private property, filed a request seeking that the lower court be directed to consider their bail applications without mechanically insisting upon the mandatory deposit of half the estimated value of the damaged property as per the applicable statute.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory provision for depositing a portion of the compensation is not an inflexible mandate and must be interpreted within the context of established bail principles. The court found that prior to making such an order, the magistrate must be satisfied that a prima facie case exists under the relevant act and that the assessment of damage is based on reliable material rather than mere allegations.
Issues: Whether a court can mechanically insist on the deposit of one-half of the alleged damage as a condition for bail without independently verifying the applicability of the act and the reasonableness of the assessed compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power to order a deposit is discretionary and conditional upon the prima facie formation of an offence. Judicial discretion must be exercised to ensure that bail conditions are not arbitrary or fanciful, maintaining a balance between compensating victims and upholding the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case disposed of, directing the trial court to consider bail applications expeditiously while exercising judicial discretion on the necessity and quantum of the deposit based on the materials on record.
ORDER :
C.S. DIAS, J.
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 28, 31 and 32 in CC No.788/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni (‘Trial Court’), which has originated from Crime No.263/2021 registered by the Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427 and 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 (‘Act’, for short).
2. The petitioners have filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the FIR, the Final Report and all further proceedings in the above case on the assertion that, even if the allegations in the above documents are taken on their face value and in their entirety, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that, on 27.08.2020 at 16.00 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly and, with the help of two excavators, demolished the compound wall of the property of the de facto complainant (third respondent) and the destroyed the coconut and pepper plantations in the property and caused a loss of Rupees Four Lakh to the third respondent.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as the petitioners have received summons from the Trial Court, they are prepared to appear before the said court and seek bail. Therefore, the petitioners would be satisfied if this Court directs the Trial Court to consider the petitioners’ bail applications, without insisting on any deposit as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act.
6. The above submission necessitates an examination of the scope and ambit of Section 8 of the Act, which postulates a special condition governing the grant of bail to persons accused of offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. As the question essentially revolves around the interpretation of the said provision, it is profitable to extract the same, which reads as follows:
“8. Special provision as to Bail. - No person accused under Section 5 or Section 6 shall be released on bail on execution of bond by two sureties and depositing in the court the amount not less than one half the value of the property destroyed or damaged as may be determined by the court on the basis of police report or on furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount, unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release”.
7. Equally relevant are the definitions in Section 2 of the Act, which reads thus:
“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
(a) "damaging act" means an act, causing damage or loss or destruction to any private property due to communal riot, hartal, bandh, demonstration, march, procession, blockade of road traffic or similar assembly by whatever name called, committed by an individual, group of individuals or organisation whether social, religious or political;
(b) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(c) "private property" means any property whether movable or immovable including any machinery, other than public property as defined under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Central Act 3 of 1984), which is owned by or in the possession of or under the control of any person or organisation or institution or entity.”
8. A reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the Act is intended to provide an effective mechanism for protecting private property from damage caused during communal disturbances, hartals, demonstrations, processions and similar assemblies, while simultaneously ensuring that the victims of such acts receive appropriate compensation. However, the allegations must disclose a “damaging act” as defined under Section 2(a), resulting i
