Disposed

Kiran Mon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024Crl.MC/1561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought a direction to the magistrate to release them on bail on appearance without insisting on deposit of half the value of damaged property under Section 8 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property Act, 2019. The court declined, holding statutory conditions bind the magistrate and applicability of the Act is for the magistrate to decide.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioners may apply for regular bail before the magistrate, who shall decide on merit including applicability of the Act.

Kiran Mon Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1561 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.759/2020 OF Ramankary Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.421 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , RAMANKARI

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2,12,23 AND 24:

¶8

1KIRAN MON
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KARIYATHARA HOUSE, WARD NO. 1,
RAMANKARY PANCHAYATH, MANALADI MURI, RAMANKARY VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 689595

¶9

2SHYJU @ KUTTAI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. XAVIER, MADATHIL PARAMBU LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, WARD
NO. 1, RAMANKARY PANCHAYATH, MANALADI MURI, RAMANKARY
VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 689595

¶10

3 THANKAMMA JOHN

¶11

AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. JOHN, MADATHIL PARAMBU LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, WARD
NO. 1, RAMANKARY PANCHAYATH, MANALADI MURI, RAMANKARY
VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 689595

¶12

4 KUNJUMOL AGED 49 YEARS

¶13

W/O. SUNIL, MADATHIL PARAMBU LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, WARD
NO. 1, RAMANKARY PANCHAYATH, MANALADI MURI, RAMANKARY
VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 689595

¶14

BY ADVS.
B.PRAMOD
BIJU VIGNESWAR
ATHUL M.V.

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN – 682031

¶17

PP-SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO.1561 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Crl.M.C is at the instance of accused Nos.2, 12, 23 and 24, for a direction to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary to grant bail to them in the event of their appearance in CC 421/2023, without insisting deposit of any amount.

¶23

The petitioners stand charge sheeted under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 447, 341, 323, 354, 427 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 (for short, the Act) along with 24 other accused persons.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, in fact, Section 4 of the Act is not a penal provision, and the penal provision is Section 5 of the said Act. As per Section 8 of the said Act, no person accused under Section 5 or Section 6 shall be released on bail on execution of bond by two sureties, and depositing in the court the amount not less than one half of the

¶25

CRL.MC NO.1561 OF 2024

¶26

¶27

value of the property destroyed or damaged as may be determined by the court on the basis of police report or on furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount, unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha was dismissed as per Annexure A12 order. The petitioners have received summons from learned magistrate court to appear before that court in CC 421/2023. Now their apprehension is that, if learned magistrate is imposing a condition to deposit one half of the value of the property destroyed or damaged, they may not be in a position to comply with that direction, and so learned magistrate has to be directed to release them on bail without any conditions for deposit of amount.

¶28

When the statute provides for depositing the amount not less than one half of the value of property destroyed or damaged, as a condition for granting bail this court cannot direct the learned magistrate to release the petitioners on bail, without any such conditions. The petitioners can appear before learned magistrate as per summons, and if they file an

¶29

CRL.MC NO.1561 OF 2024

¶30

¶31

application for regular bail, learned magistrate has to pass appropriate orders on merit.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the provisions of the said Act is not applicable in the case on hand. Learned magistrate has to hear the parties, to decide as to whether the said Act is applicable to the case, so as to impose

¶33

the conditions as envisaged under Section 8 of the said Act.

¶34

With these directions, this Crl.M.C is disposed of.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

ska

CRL.MC NO.1561 OF 2024

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1561/2024

¶42

`PETITIONER ANNEXURES` `Annexure A1`	`TRUE` `25.08` `RAMAN`	`COPY OF THE FINAL` `.2021 SUBMITTED IN CRIME` `KARY POLICE STATION, ALAP`	`REPORT DATED` `NO. 759/2020 OF` `PUZHA DISTRICT.`
`Annexure A2`	`TRUE` `DATED` `ALAPP`	`COPY OF THE FIR IN CRI` `12.12.2020 OF RAMANKARY` `UZHA DISTRICT.`	`ME NO. 759/2020` `POLICE STATION,`
`Annexure A3`	`TRUE` `RAMAN`	`COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME` `KARY POLICE STATION, ALAP`	`NO. 759/2020 OF` `PUZHA DISTRICT.`
`Annexure A4`	`TRUE` `ISSUE` `RAMAN`	`COPY OF THE RTI REPLY D` `D BY THE OF THE SEC` `KARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.`	`ATED 15.11.2021` `RETARY OF THE`
`Annexure A5`	`TRUE` `THE` `UNDER`	`COPY OF THE REPLY DATED` `ASSISTANT ENGINEER LID` `THE RTI ACT.`	`NIL ISSUED BY` `& EVW SECTION`
`Annexure A6`	`TRUE` `VILLA` `THE L`	`COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH` `GE OFFICER, RAMANKARY` `IE AND NATURE OF THE ROAD`	`PREPARED BY THE` `VILLAGE SHOWING` `IN QUESTION.`
`Annexure A7`	`TRUE` `DATED` `KUNJU` `RELIN`	`COPY OF THE LAND RELI` `05.07.1995` `SU` `LAKSHMIAMMA UNDER THE` `QUISHMENT ACT.`	`NQUISHMENT FORM` `BMITTED` `BY` `KERALA LAND`
`Annexure A8`	`TRUE` `DATED` `KERAL`	`COPY OF THE LAND RELI` `07.04.1998 SUBMITTED SAT` `A LAND RELINQUISHMENT ACT`	`NQUISHMENT FORM` `HEESH UNDER THE` `.`
`Annexure A9`	`TRUE` `ISSUE` `FACTO`	`COPY OF THE NOTICE D` `D RAMANKARY GRAMA PANCHA` `COMPLAINANT.`	`ATED 07.08.2009` `YATH TO THE DE`
`Annexure A10`	`TRUE` `A. N` `GRANT` `18, 2` `POLIC`	`COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 0` `O. 266/2021 OF THIS` `ING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO` `5 IN CRIME NO. 759 OF 20` `E STATION.`	`2.02.2021 IN B.` `HON'BLE COURT` `ACCUSED NOS. 4,` `20 OF RAMANKARY`
`Annexure A11`	`TRUE` `A. N` `GRANT`	`COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 0` `O. 585/2021 OF THIS` `ING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO`	`2.02.2021 IN B.` `HON'BLE COURT` `ACCUSED NOS. 1,`

¶43

CRL.MC NO.1561 OF 2024

¶44

¶45

8, 13, 14, IN CRIME NO. 759 OF 2020 OF
RAMANKARY POLICE STATION.
Annexure A12TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN
CRL. M. P. NO. 207/2024 OF THE HON'BLE
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

Kiran Mon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Mon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrishnan M., Vs State of Kerala

Justine Vs Renju Justine

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Shine.S., Vs State of Kerala

Reshma Vs State of Kerala

Raju E.Thomas, Vs State of Kerala