High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-04Petition dismissed; no modification to bail dep...

P. C. Umer v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Narayana Pisharadi
Judgment Date: 2019-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The anticipatory bail condition requiring deposit of Rs.1,21,000 maintained; no modification is granted.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; no modification to bail deposit condition; deposit remains in force.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. C. Umer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Smt V Sreeja (Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri U.K. Devidas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt V Sreeja (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. C. Umer, is accused in Crime No.465/2019 of Perinthalmanna Police Station and seeks under Section 482 CrPC to modify/delete a condition imposed by the Court of Session, Manjeri while granting anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court had conditioned pre-arrest bail on depositing Rs. 1,21,000, equal to the loss caused to the Government by demolishing the bund of Kattuppara lift irrigation canal. The Sessions Court’s Annexure-I order erroneously cites the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Ordinance, 2019 as the legal basis, a misstatement since the act governing public property damage is the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, and the relevant offence is Section 3(2)(a). The High Court, per R. Narayana Pisharadi, J., cites Hemanth Kumar v. Sub Inspector of Police and Hemachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police to uphold a deposit of the loss amount as a bail condition, noting that deposits are warranted to ensure recovery of Government losses. Lekha v. State of Kerala is discussed, acknowledging its principle that cash deposits are not normally required, but distinguishing it for cases involving destruction of public property. The court concludes there is no illegality in the lower order and dismisses the petition, preserving the deposit condition. It flags that deposit serves as a practical mechanism for state loss recovery in public-property destruction cases.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 3(2)(a), Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Ordinance, 2019

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In cases where public property is destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail.
A rigorous approach is contemplated in granting bail to an accused involved in offences under the Act.
Destruction of public property is to be viewed differently from offences affecting individuals; deposit of cash equal to loss is justified in such cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the cash deposit condition is not a lawful or reasonable bail condition under the facts of the case, especially given the statutory framework and the misapplication of the Kerala Private Property Ordinance. He relies on Lekha v. State of Kerala (2019) for the proposition that cash deposits are not normally required, and argues deposit should not be a standard bail term, urging the Court to modify/delete the condition.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, argues that deposit of the loss amount is a legitimate bail condition to secure recovery of government funds in cases involving destruction of public property, and cites established jurisprudence (Hemanth Kumar, Hemachandran) confirming a strict approach in such cases. It also clarifies that the relevant offence is under the PDPP Act, 1984, not the 2019 Ordinance.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hemanth Kumar v. Sub Inspector of Police	2011(4) KHC 89; 2011(4) KLT 288	Positive	Court relies on this decision to justify a cash deposit condition for bail in cases involving destruction of public property.
Hemachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police	2011(4) KHC 689; 2011(4) KLT 841	Positive	Decision supports rigorous bail conditions for offences under the PDPP Act; deposit of loss amount is justified.
Lekha v. State of Kerala	2019(3) KHC 983; 2019(3) KLT 330	Partly Overruled / Limited	Principle against automatic cash deposits is acknowledged but distinguished for destruction of public property; deposit may be insisted in such cases.
Sumit Mehta v. State	(2013) 15 SCC 570	Positive	Cited to support that deposit of cash as a bail condition is not totally impermissible in appropriate cases.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. C. Umer v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.7136 OF 2019(B)** **ORDER IN CRMC 1059/2019 DATED 09-10-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI** **CRIME NO.465/2019 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **P.C.UMMER AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, PEERALI KOONANGATT HOUSE,PULAMANTHOLE.P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** ## **SMT V SREEJA-PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.209, THE COURT ON 04.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 2 ## **“CR”** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ Crl.M.C.No.7136 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.465/2019 of Perinthalmanna police station. This petition is filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for deleting or modifying one of the conditions in Annexure-I order passed by the Court of Session, Manjeri on granting him anticipatory bail in the case. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 09.08.2019, the petitioner demolished the bund of Kattuppara lift irrigation canal and caused a loss of Rs.1,21,000/- to the Government. 3. The petitioner filed application seeking pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session, Manjeri. As per Annexure-I order, Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 3 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- in the court below which is equal to the amount of loss caused to the Government. The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, has approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 of the Code for modifying/deleting it. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the first information report in the case. In Annexure-I order, it is stated that the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(2) of the the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Public (Private?) Property and Payment of Compensation Ordinance, 2019. This is evidently not correct. The Ordinance does not contain any subsection to Section 3. The Ordinance applies to damage caused to private property. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he demolished the lift irrigation canal bund and caused loss to the Government. Therefore, evidently the offence Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 4 allegedly committed by the petitioner is under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 6. In **Hemanth Kumar v. Sub Inspector of Police : 2011(4) KHC 89 : 2011(4) KLT 288,** this Court has held as follows: _“In cases where public property is destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail to them. Otherwise, the loss sustained to the State would not be realised at all. Courts cannot be mute spectators to the wanton destruction of public property”._ 7. In **Hemachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police : 2011 (4) KHC 689 : 2011(4) KLT 841** , this Court declined to reconsider the decision in **Hemanth Kumar** (supra). This Court observed that a rigorous approach is contemplated in the matter of granting bail to an accused involved in offences committed under the Act. This Court further observed that the offence of destruction of public property is to be viewed differently from offences affecting individuals and that deposit of amount, which Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 5 is equivalent to the loss caused to the Government, as a condition for granting bail to the accused in such cases would be justified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the decisions in **Hemanth Kumar** and **Hemachandran** (supra) are applicable only to cases involving destruction of public property in connection with hartals, strikes etc. I find no reasonable basis for accepting such a contention. The purpose of insisting deposit of cash, as a condition for granting bail in cases involving destruction of public property, is to recover the amount of loss caused to the Government without any cumbersome procedure, in case of conviction of the accused in the case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the decision in **Lekha v. State of Kerala : 2019(3) KHC 983 : 2019(3) KLT 330** and contended that deposit of cash cannot be insisted as a condition for granting bail. In **Lekha** (supra), I had occasion to hold that the Court shall not, normally, make any direction for deposit of cash as a condition for granting bail. But, this Court had also held, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in **Sumit Mehta v. State : (2013)** Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 6 **15 SCC 570,** that it is not totally impermissible for the Court to insist on deposit of cash as a condition for granting bail in appropriate cases. Of course, **Lekha** (supra) does not specifically mention that in cases involving destruction of public property, deposit of cash could be insisted by the Court as a condition for granting bail. It does not mean that, the earlier decisions in **Hemanth Kumar** and **Hemachandran** (supra), have got no binding force. There is no real conflict between **Lekha** (supra) and the decisions in **Hemanth Kumar** and **Hemachandran** (supra). Deposit of cash, as a condition for granting bail, shall be insisted in respect of offences under the Act, involving destruction of public property. 9. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he demolished an irrigation canal bund and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,21,000/-. The court below has directed him to deposit only that much amount as a condition for granting him pre-arrest bail. I find no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order. There is no sufficient ground to modify the aforesaid condition by invoking the power Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 7 of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/01/11/2019 Crl.M.C.No.7136/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 IN W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, PAZHOOR HOUSE, KUNNUMPUFAM, PARIYAPURAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CRL.M.C.NO.1059/2019 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO.465/2019 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION** ## **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ORDINANCE, 2019 DATED 08.01.2019** RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE