Nigil vs State of Kerala

NIGIL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 29, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1598884

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1598884
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Jan 29, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./1106/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NIGIL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....some time on 16.09.2020 and 17.09.2020, the accused persons allegedly trespassed into the party office of the congress party and allegedly set on fire some articles which were kept inside the office and it caused a loss of rs.5,000/- to the de facto complainant and thus committed the offence. the applicants were arrested on 11.01.2021 and have been remanded to judicial custody. their application for bail before the jurisdictional magistrate was dismissed and hence they have approached this court for indulgence.3. heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned public prosecutor.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that only non-bailable offences alleged against the applicants are under sections 436 ipc and under section 5 of the keralaprevention of damage to private property and payment of compensation act, 2019. the applicants have no criminal antecedents. they are willing to co-operate with the investigation. they have been implicated solely for the purpose of political rivalry and there are no witnesses who have seen the applicants trespassing into the property or setting on fire any articles as alleged. there is also no other materials connecting them with the crime. therefore their further incarceration may not serve any purpose.5. after having heard the submissions on both sides, i find that to attract an offence under section 436 of the ipc, the allegation must be that the accused must have set on fire a humandwelling or house. in the instant case, the specific allegation is that they had set on fire certain articles which were kept inside the party office. therefore offence under section 436 ipc is not attracted at the most only an offence under section 435 ipc would be attracted, submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. considering the arguments raised on both sides, i find that there is no specific allegation that dwelling house or residential building was set on fire. only articles kept.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942 CRIME NO.575/2020 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, Kannur PETITIONER/S: 1 NIGIL AGED 21 YEARS SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, ALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, MALAPATTOM AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPATTOM CENTRE, KANNUR - 670631 2 LOHITH.A AGED 30 YEARS SON OF KRISHNAN.P, ALAVOOR HOUSE, MALAPATTOM AMSOM, KOLANDHA 3 NAVANEETH RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 25 YEARS SON OF RADHAKRISHNAN N K, N ADUVILE KANDY HOUSE, MALAPATTOM AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPATTOM CENTRE BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.SREEJA-PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 29th day of January 2021 Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.575/2020 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 451 and 436 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that

between some time on 16.09.2020 and 17.09.2020, the accused persons allegedly trespassed into the party office of the Congress party and allegedly set on fire some articles which were kept inside the office and it caused a loss of Rs.5,000/- to the de facto complainant and thus committed the offence. The applicants were arrested on 11.01.2021 and have been remanded to judicial custody. Their application for bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate was dismissed and hence they have approached this Court for indulgence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that only non-bailable offences alleged against the applicants are under Sections 436 IPC and under Section 5 of the Kerala

Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation. They have been implicated solely for the purpose of political rivalry and there are no witnesses who have seen the applicants trespassing into the property or setting on fire any articles as alleged. There is also no other materials connecting them with the crime. Therefore their further incarceration may not serve any purpose.

5. After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that to attract an offence under Section 436 of the IPC, the allegation must be that the accused must have set on fire a human

dwelling or house. In the instant case, the specific allegation is that they had set on fire certain articles which were kept inside the party office. Therefore offence under Section 436 IPC is not attracted at the most only an offence under Section 435 IPC would be attracted, submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Considering the arguments raised on both sides, I find that there is no specific allegation that dwelling house or residential building was set on fire. Only articles kept inside the party office

is set on fire and therefore it is doubtful whether an offence under Section 436 IPC would be attracted and therefore the only non-bailable offence alleged against the applicants would be under Section 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019. Hence, further incarceration of the applicants may not be necessary.

6. In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be

released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) They shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) each before the jurisdictional court.

(2) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

(3) They shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

(4) They shall not get involved in similar

offences during the currency of the bail. In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties NIGIL vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon