Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE2D DAY OF APRIL201412TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1935 of 2014 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CRLMP11972014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR CRIME NO. 255/2014 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA --------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4: ----------------------------------------- NITHIN, AGED23YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN, PUTHILETHU VEEDU, MANGARAM MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689641. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0204-2014, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.1940/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 1935 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED143.2014 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.1197/2014 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ADOOR. ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION IN CRIME NO.255/2014 OF THE PANDALAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE ------------------------------------------ NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.Nos. 1940 & 1935 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 02nd day of April, 2014. ORDER
Petitioners in both the applications are accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively in Crime No.255/14 of Pandalam Police Station. The case was registered on the basis of a statement given by the de facto complainant against the petitioners and others alleging offences under Sections 452, 427, 294(b), 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation was that on 18.12.2014 at about 12.30 a.m, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons four in number criminally trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant , armed with deadly weapons and abused the de facto complainant with obscene language and caused injuries to him and his employees and destroyed some articles causing a loss of Rs.3,50,000/- to the de fato complainant and thereby they have committed the above said offence.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 18.02.2014 and thereafter, they were in jail. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1940/14 filed Crl.M.P.No.1238/14 and petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1935/114 Crl.M.C.Nos. 1940 & 1935 of 2014 :
2. : filed Crl.M.P.No.1197/14 for bail and learned magistrate by Annexure-1 order in the respective above cases allowed the application with conditions inter alia that they shall deposit Rs.3,50,000/- the loss allegedly sustained by the de facto complainant as a condition for granting bail. Both these petitioners are now challenging that condition by filing these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount of alleged loss of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a condition for granting bail is illegal and that will amount to denial of bail and the petitioners are not in a position to deposit this amount. So, they prayed for lifting that condition.
6. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that huge loss has been sustained by the de facto complainant on account of wrongful act of the petitioners.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant Crime No.255/14 Crl.M.C.Nos. 1940 & 1935 of 2014 :
3. : of Pandalam Police Station was registered against the petitioners in both the cases who were arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively and two others alleging offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that both the petitioners were arrested on 18.02.2014 and they are in jail from that date onwards. They filed the applications for bail and the learned magistrate by independent orders allowed the application for bail but, imposed conditions inter alia to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- being the alleged loss sustained by the de facto complainant on account of the alleged wrongful acts committed by the accused persons. The question whether they have committed the offence itself in dispute. Further, the actual loss sustained has not been assessed as well. It is true that the courts can impose conditions while granting bail to the accused persons. But, at the same time, the condition should be of such nature that could be capable of complied with by the persons. If any condition is imposed which is incapable of complying with by the accused persons, then, that will amount to denial of bail itself. There is no condition precedent except in the case of damage caused to public property that too in Crl.M.C.Nos. 1940 & 1935 of 2014 :
4. : view of the decision of this court to deposit the amount of loss alleged to have been sustained as a condition for granting bail. So, under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the court below in both the applications to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- as condition for releasing the petitioners on bail is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. So, the condition directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- as a condition for release them on bail as per Annexure A1 orders in both the applications are set aside and lifted. With the above observation and direction, the petitions are allowed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts immediately. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge