Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court, considered a significant question, “whether there can be a direction to deposit the amount of damages for the destruction caused to the property as a condition for granting bail, subject to the investigation in the case and the trial if any, by a court of law?”

A Single judge bench of Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan, answering the question in positive, held that courts can impose a condition requiring an accused to deposit an amount equivalent to the damage caused to property as a prerequisite for granting bail in cases involving house trespass and mischief. The court emphasised that “if a “legal pinch” is given to such assailants at the bail stage itself, the tendency to destroy will decrease and a message will be sent to society.”

The case involved multiple bail applications where the accused were charged with house trespass and causing significant damage to private property. The prosecution alleged that the accused had unlawfully entered residential premises and committed acts of vandalism, resulting in financial losses to the victims.

The petitioners contended that there is no explicit provision in the BNSS, 2023, mandating such a bail condition. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramratan @ Ramaswaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, the petitioners argued that imposing a financial deposit as a bail condition would transform the criminal process into a recovery mechanism, which is not the court’s function.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that similar bail conditions have been upheld in cases under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. It was further asserted that the courts have the discretion to impose reasonable conditions to prevent further destruction of property and to ensure accountability.

The court observed that while Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, does not explicitly provide for such a bail condition, past judicial precedents have recognized the authority of courts to impose conditions in property damage cases. The court cited Hemachandran M.T. v. Sub Inspector of Police and Kodungallur Film Society v. State of Kerala, where similar conditions were upheld.

The court emphasised the the necessity of imposing such conditions highlighting that property owners suffer immeasurable hardship due to such acts and that judicial intervention at the bail stage can act as a deterrent.

The Court referred to the words of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in Jolly George Varghese and Another v The Bank of Cochin (1980): “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 also urged the legislature to consider amending the law to incorporate such provisions explicitly.

The court clarified that the amount to be deposited can be equal to, half of, or even double the damage allegedly caused. It stated, “the amount deposited by the petitioners in these bail applications will be subject to the outcome of the investigation and also the final decision of the court of law, if the final report is filed. If the petitioners are exonerated by the police after investigation, the petitioners can claim the deposited amount from the jurisdictional court. Similarly, if the petitioners are acquitted by the court of law after trial, the petitioners can get back the amount from the court concerned by filing an appropriate application. However, if the petitioners are convicted for the offence of mischief, the court can utilise this amount to pay compensation to the victims.”

The bail applications were accordingly disposed of, with directions to the accused to deposit a specified portion of the damage amount before securing their release on bail.

 

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases [BA 427 & 831 of 2025]

Appearance: Counsel for Petitioners- Advocates Boby Thomas, Winston K. V., Vivek P. C., Arun Ashok, Neena James, Anaswara K. P.; Counsel for Respondents- Advocates Noushad K. A. (Sr. PP), I. Sheela Devi, Binesh K. N., Hrithwik C. S. (Sr. PP)