KOCHI: Persons accused of destroying public property need not individually furnish the total value of the property destroyed to get bail but only need to meet the loss jointly, the Kerala high court has held.
The ruling was given by Justice K Ramakrishnan while considering a petition filed by seven DYFI activists who were booked by Nilambur police for destroying public property inside Nilambur taluk hospital when they allegedly clashed with the Congress workers on February 15.
This was after a protest held by DYFI when a minister visited Nilambur in the aftermath of the alleged rape and murder of a sweeper, C Radha, at the Congress' block committee office at Nilambur.
According to the DYFI workers, they were attacked by the Congress activists, and members of both the groups suffered injuries. They were taken to the taluk hospital, where again a clash took place, resulting in damage to the hospital property to the tune of Rs 6,500.
After the police case accused them of destroying public property, the DYFI workers sought anticipatory bail from Manjeri sessions court. The court asked them to deposit Rs 6,500 each to get bail.
The DYFI activists challenged the sessions court's directive.
The sessions court's directive is illegal, especially when the total loss alleged to have incurred in the incident is only Rs 6,500, the counsel for DYFI activists argued.
Relying on a 2010 decision of the high court, the counsel contended that they only need to deposit either the total amount or even a lesser amount. Therefore, the court directive should be modified, it was argued - on the basis of the decision in Hemant Kumar vs Sub Inspector of Police case in 2010.
Accepting the argument, the court held, "In the decision (in Hemant Kumar's case), it has been held that in cases where public properties were destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for grant of bail. But in this case, even as per the prosecution case, the total value of the article destroyed is only Rs 6,500. So, the condition imposed by the sessions court to deposit Rs 6,500 by each accused person appears to be unwarranted in view of the dictum laid down in the above decision."
Further, the court modified the sessions court's order to the effect that the petitioners need to deposit Rs 6,500 jointly to get anticipatory bails.
The ruling was given by Justice K Ramakrishnan while considering a petition filed by seven DYFI activists who were booked by Nilambur police for destroying public property inside Nilambur taluk hospital when they allegedly clashed with the Congress workers on February 15.
This was after a protest held by DYFI when a minister visited Nilambur in the aftermath of the alleged rape and murder of a sweeper, C Radha, at the Congress' block committee office at Nilambur.
According to the DYFI workers, they were attacked by the Congress activists, and members of both the groups suffered injuries. They were taken to the taluk hospital, where again a clash took place, resulting in damage to the hospital property to the tune of Rs 6,500.
After the police case accused them of destroying public property, the DYFI workers sought anticipatory bail from Manjeri sessions court. The court asked them to deposit Rs 6,500 each to get bail.
The DYFI activists challenged the sessions court's directive.
The sessions court's directive is illegal, especially when the total loss alleged to have incurred in the incident is only Rs 6,500, the counsel for DYFI activists argued.
Relying on a 2010 decision of the high court, the counsel contended that they only need to deposit either the total amount or even a lesser amount. Therefore, the court directive should be modified, it was argued - on the basis of the decision in Hemant Kumar vs Sub Inspector of Police case in 2010.
Accepting the argument, the court held, "In the decision (in Hemant Kumar's case), it has been held that in cases where public properties were destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for grant of bail. But in this case, even as per the prosecution case, the total value of the article destroyed is only Rs 6,500. So, the condition imposed by the sessions court to deposit Rs 6,500 by each accused person appears to be unwarranted in view of the dictum laid down in the above decision."
Further, the court modified the sessions court's order to the effect that the petitioners need to deposit Rs 6,500 jointly to get anticipatory bails.
No comments:
Post a Comment