Kerala High Court
Sheheer T.A vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:17017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2488 OF 2025
CRIME NO.937/2024 OF Peechi Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHEHEER T.A
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O ALI, THERUVATH HOUSE, KAIPARAMB P.O.,
KAIPARAMB, THRISSUR., PIN - 680564
2 PRANAV K
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN, KUPPADAKATH HOUSE, PRAPOYIL P.O.,
CHERUPUZHA, VAYAKARA, KANNUR., PIN - 670511
3 ASHIK
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM, ISTHIYAD MANZIL HOUSE, MECHIKODE,
ELAVAMPADAM P.O., KIZHAKKANCHERI, PALAKKAD., PIN -
678684
4 B.S. JYOTHSNA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O B.S. SAKTHIDHARAN, BELYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH P.O., THRISSUR., PIN - 680681
5 VISHNU R
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, NAMBATHODI,
ELANAD P.O., THRISSUR., PIN - 680586
6 ALVIN SHAJI
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O SHAJI P.V., PONNANIKKATTIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD
P.O., PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR., PIN - 680652
2025:KER:17017
BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025
2
BY ADVS.
VIVEK.P.K
SANDEEP SUKUMARAN
GADHA.S
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A-SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:17017
BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2488 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.937/2024 of Peechi Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 324 (4), 324 (5), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3 (2) (e) of Prevention Damage Public Property Act 1984 (PDPP Act).
3. The prosecution case is that on 04.12.2024 at 12.00 pm, the petitioners along with the other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and caused damages to the main entrance of the Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi. Now, the damage is assessed as Rs.10,430/-.
2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 4
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are students. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners committed mischief to the Public Property. In Hemachandran M. T. @ Kamalesh and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another [2011 (4) KHC 689], this Court observed like this:
" 24. The PDPP Act was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property, including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion. The PDPP Act is an Act to provide for prevention of damage to public property and for the matters connected therewith. The Act defines "public property". S.2 (a) of the PDPP Act provides that unless the context otherwise requires, "mischief" shall have the same meaning as in S.425 of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code deals with offences 2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 5 against property. S.425 to 440 of the Indian Penal Code deal with "mischief". Punishment under these Sections vary from imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months to a term which may extend to ten years. Irrespective of the term of imprisonment as punishment, all the offences under Chapter XVII of the IPC are covered by S.437 (3) CrlPC S.5 of the PDPP Act provides that "no person accused or convicted of an offence punishable under S.3 or 4 shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. The fourth proviso to S.437 CrlPC provides for opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor only if the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more. S.6 of the PDPP Act states that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The scheme of the PDPP Act when considered alongwith S.437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be clear that in the matter of granting bail, a rigorous approach is contemplated when the offences alleged are under the PDPP Act. Such rigorous approach is required in the matter of imposing conditions for granting bail also. A condition for deposit of the loss sustained to the Government as a condition for granting bail to the accused would be justified under S.437 and S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Supreme Court in In Re Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2009 (2) KLT 552 : 2009 (5) SCC 212, 2009 (2) KHC 374 : AIR 2009 SC 2266 : 2009 (1) KLD 664 : 2009 CriLJ 2807 : 2009 (5) SCALE 638 would also support such a view. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the decision in Hemanth Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2011 (4) KHC 89 : 2011 (4) KLT 288 : 2011 (2) KLD 701 :
2011 (4) KLJ 296 : ILR 2011 (4) Ker. 261 requires reconsideration.
2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 6
8. If there is loss to the Public Property, there can be a direction to deposit either the damage amount or double the amount. In this case, altogether there are nine accused. Petitioners are six in numbers. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- each. With that condition, the bail can be granted.
9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
10. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 7 "12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."
11. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following 2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 8 directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-
operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade 2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 9 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- each, before the Jurisdictional 2025:KER:17017 BAIL APPL. NO.2488 OF 2025 10 Court and produce the receipt before the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender.
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE SSG