The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a person accused of committing house trespass and causing property damage, can be directed to deposit some amount as damages as condition for bail [Davis PR v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan said that if a “legal pinch” is given to such accused at the bail stage itself, the tendency to destroy will decrease and a message will be sent to society. Further, the Court reasoned that the assailants should understand the sadness of people who have to see the destruction of their hard-earned dwelling house or household articles. However, the Court also clarified that the condition of deposit of the amount of damage can be relaxed in appropriate cases if there is sufficient reason. Nevertheless, it stressed that deposit is the rule and non-deposit is the exception."I am of the considered opinion that, if an offence of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is committed, the Court can direct the accused to deposit the amount of damages/half of the amount or even double the amount of damages as a condition for granting bail. The deposited amount will be subject to the investigation and trial, if any," the Court said..If the accused is exonerated or acquitted, the accused will get back the amount deposited at the time of granting bail, the Court added. "But, if the accused is convicted for such offences, the amount deposited can be directed to be disbursed to the victim in accordance with law," it ordered..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.Kerala High Court.The Court passed the order after hearing anticipatory bail applications in two different cases wherein the accused had allegedly trespassed into private residences and vandalized property.The accused were booked under Section 324 (mischief) and Section 333 (house trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). .The accused opposed the imposition of financial condition for bail, arguing that it was excessive and beyond the scope of statutory provisions under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)..Senior Counsel P Vijayabhanu, while assisting the Court on the legal implications of such a condition, acknowledged the societal impact of such measures but pointed to Supreme Court rulings, which disapproved of financial deposits as bail conditions in certain cases.The Court, however, distinguished the cases and found support in the Supreme Court's decision in Kodungallur Film Society v Union of India (2018 (5) KHC 297), in which the apex court had permitted conditional bail in cases of damage caused by violence.Justice Kunhikrishnan also referred to the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019, which allows courts to ask accused to deposit not less than one-half of the value of the property destroyed or damaged, as a condition for bail."Just like Section 8 in the Act 2019, I am of the considered opinion that the legislature should seriously think as to whether such a condition while granting bail is necessary in cases of house-trespass and mischief in residential houses, offices etc," the Court said..In this backdrop, the Court granted bail to the accused in both the cases but directed them to deposit a specified amount corresponding to the damages reported in the FIRs..The petitioners were represented by advocates Boby Thomas, Winston KV, Vivek PC, Arun Ashok, Neena James and Anaswara KP.Senior Public Prosecutors Noushad KA and Hrithwik CS appeared for the State..[Read Order]
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a person accused of committing house trespass and causing property damage, can be directed to deposit some amount as damages as condition for bail [Davis PR v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan said that if a “legal pinch” is given to such accused at the bail stage itself, the tendency to destroy will decrease and a message will be sent to society. Further, the Court reasoned that the assailants should understand the sadness of people who have to see the destruction of their hard-earned dwelling house or household articles. However, the Court also clarified that the condition of deposit of the amount of damage can be relaxed in appropriate cases if there is sufficient reason. Nevertheless, it stressed that deposit is the rule and non-deposit is the exception."I am of the considered opinion that, if an offence of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is committed, the Court can direct the accused to deposit the amount of damages/half of the amount or even double the amount of damages as a condition for granting bail. The deposited amount will be subject to the investigation and trial, if any," the Court said..If the accused is exonerated or acquitted, the accused will get back the amount deposited at the time of granting bail, the Court added. "But, if the accused is convicted for such offences, the amount deposited can be directed to be disbursed to the victim in accordance with law," it ordered..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.Kerala High Court.The Court passed the order after hearing anticipatory bail applications in two different cases wherein the accused had allegedly trespassed into private residences and vandalized property.The accused were booked under Section 324 (mischief) and Section 333 (house trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). .The accused opposed the imposition of financial condition for bail, arguing that it was excessive and beyond the scope of statutory provisions under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)..Senior Counsel P Vijayabhanu, while assisting the Court on the legal implications of such a condition, acknowledged the societal impact of such measures but pointed to Supreme Court rulings, which disapproved of financial deposits as bail conditions in certain cases.The Court, however, distinguished the cases and found support in the Supreme Court's decision in Kodungallur Film Society v Union of India (2018 (5) KHC 297), in which the apex court had permitted conditional bail in cases of damage caused by violence.Justice Kunhikrishnan also referred to the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019, which allows courts to ask accused to deposit not less than one-half of the value of the property destroyed or damaged, as a condition for bail."Just like Section 8 in the Act 2019, I am of the considered opinion that the legislature should seriously think as to whether such a condition while granting bail is necessary in cases of house-trespass and mischief in residential houses, offices etc," the Court said..In this backdrop, the Court granted bail to the accused in both the cases but directed them to deposit a specified amount corresponding to the damages reported in the FIRs..The petitioners were represented by advocates Boby Thomas, Winston KV, Vivek PC, Arun Ashok, Neena James and Anaswara KP.Senior Public Prosecutors Noushad KA and Hrithwik CS appeared for the State..[Read Order]
