Ajesh vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.92 of 2021 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 451, 353, 294(b) and 341 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(c) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The petitioner, along with other accused, is alleged to have vandalised a BEVCO outlet at 8.30 p.m on 7.2.2021, on being informed that beer was out of stock at the outlet. It is alleged that the accused trespassed into the outlet, assaulted the employees and broke some beer bottles. The petitioner was arrested on 9.2.2021 and by Annexure A2, he was granted bail subject to certain conditions. As per condition No.2 in Annexure A2, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.50,000/-. The said direction was issued in the light of the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the monetary loss caused by the accused was assessed at Rs.50,000/-. By Annexure A3, the 1st accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge took note of the further statement made by the de facto complainant that only three bottles of liquor were damaged and the loss was only Rs.3,170/- and that, even as per the version of the de facto complainant, it was the 2nd accused who had caused damage. Hence, anticipatory bail was granted to the 1st accused without insisting for any deposit being made.

This Crl.M.C is filed praying to delete condition No.2 in Annexure A2 order, based on the submission of the de facto complainant himself that the damage caused is to the tune of Rs.3,170/- only and that too, by the 2nd accused alone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner having failed to comply with condition No.2 in Annexure A2, is still languishing in custody. It is submitted that unless the onerous condition is lifted the petitioner will lose the benefit of Annexure A2 bail order.

It is evident from a reading of Annexure A3 that the damage has been assessed at Rs.3,170/-. Going by the decision of this Court in Hemachandran M.T @ Kamalesh and Others v. S.I. of Police and Another [2011(4) KHC 698], the court can impose the condition of deposit of the amount of loss sustained due to the destruction of public property. As far as the instant case is concerned, the de facto complainant has admitted that the loss sustained is Rs.3,170/- only and that the damage was caused by the 2nd accused. In such circumstances, the direction to deposit Rs.50,000/- as a condition for releasing the petitioner on bail cannot be sustained.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by deleting condition No.2 in Annexure A2. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his complying with the other conditions in Annexure A2 order.