Person Accused Of Vandalising Property Upon Trespass Can Be Asked To Deposit Damages As Condition To Grant Bail: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a person booked for committing mischief under Section 324 of BNS along with house-trespass under Section 333 of BNS, can be asked to deposit an amount in accordance with the damage allegedly caused by him, as a condition precedent to bail. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan held that the courts should compulsorily impose this condition while giving bail and...
The Kerala High Court has held that a person booked for committing mischief under Section 324 of BNS along with house-trespass under Section 333 of BNS, can be asked to deposit an amount in accordance with the damage allegedly caused by him, as a condition precedent to bail.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan held that the courts should compulsorily impose this condition while giving bail and should deviate from it only when there are sufficient reasons.
“..deposit is the rule and non-deposit is the exception”, the Court observed.
The Court observed that this will act as a deterrent and will send a message to the society.
The High Court ordered that the Court can direct the accused to deposit the amount equal to the amount of damages or half of the damages or even double the amount of damages as a condition for granting bail.
The Court added if the accused is subsequently exonerated in the investigation, he can file an application before the jurisdictional court to get back the amount deposited at the time of granting bail. In case, if he is acquitted by the court, he can get the amount deposited as a condition for bail. However, if the accused is convicted, such amount can be directed to be disbursed to the victim in accordance with the law.
The Court observed that investigation and trial will take some time in such cases and meanwhile, the accused should be given a 'legal pinch' subject to the conclusion of the investigation and trial.
The Court also suggested the legislature to consider whether such condition can be incorporated in cases of house-trespass and mischief in residential houses, offices etc. As of now, no such condition is in the BNSS.
The Court observed that it was aware of words of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in Jolly George Varghese and Another v The Bank of Cochin (1980). In that case, the Court had observed thus: “To be poor, in this land of daridra Narayana, is no crime and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one person in prison is flagrantly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court in the instant case observed that being a vandal and destroying the hard-earned properties of people is a crime. The Court said that assailants should understand the sadness of people who suffered such vandalism and the “legal pinch” will decrease the tendency to destroy other's property.
Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu was requested by Court to address the Court on this legal question. While he agreed that such actions will give a message to the society, he invited Court's attention to the Supreme Court decisions in Ramratan @ Ramswaroop v State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and Ramesh Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi (2023).
The High Court observed that in Ramratan, conditions were imposed which led to deprivation of civil rights of the parties. The High Court said that Ramesh Kumar which deprecated cash deposit a bail condition in Section 420 IPC cases will not apply in these circumstances. The Court held that the decision of Apex Court in Kodungallur Film Society v Union of India and Others (2018) will be applicable in this scenario. In that case, a 3-Bench judge had issued guidelines and laid down that when a person is arrested for either committing or initiating, promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property, he may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified loss.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Boby Thomas, Winston K. V., Vivek P. C., Arun Ashok, Neena James, Anaswara K. P.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocaes Noushad K. A. (Sr. PP), I. Sheela Devi, Binesh K. N., Hrithwik C. S. (Sr. PP)
Case Title: Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases
Case No: BA 427 & 831 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96