IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10227 of 2011 CRIME NO.1006 OF 2011 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7 & 11 TO 13: 1. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AMAL BHAVAN, NEAR PARUTHIARA SASTHA TEMPLE, PARUTHIARA CHERY, VELIYAM VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SAJILAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, CHANDRALAYAM VEETIL, NEAR KURISHUMOODU JUNCTION, CHEMPAKARAMANALOOR CHERY, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. AJMEEN M.KARUVA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD KUNJUMON, RASHEEDA MANZIL, NEAR TRIKKARUVA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VADAKKEKARA CHERY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. ANEESH ASHTAMUDI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN, VISH BHAVANAM VEETIL, MANJADIMUKKU, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. PRADEEP, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PLAVILA VEETIL, NEAR KALLUVETTAM MARKET, NADUVILAKKARA CHERY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRCT. 6. ABHEESH CHANDRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, NEAR PUTHUKULAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PUTHUKULAM CHERY, PUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. ASARSHA, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ASEEZ, SHA BHAVAN, NEAR MUTTAKKAVU UP SCHOOL, MUTTAIKKAVU CHERY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. JAGADJEEVAN LALI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LALI, ANUGRAHA, NEAR KOZHIKODE THEKKUMURI GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL, AZHANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 9. RAJU D.PUTHUKULAM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.DAMODHARAN, MAVILA VEETIL, PUTHUKULAM CHERY, PUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 10227 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 7 and 11 to 13 in Crime No.1006 of 2011 of Kollam East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 451, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act and Section 25(c) of the Telegraph Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: Against the hike in petrol price, AIYF activists made a protest march. They marched to the office of BSNL at Kollam and indiscriminately destroyed several articles in the office including computers, switch boards, security cabins, counters, etc. The loss was assessed approximately at Rupees Ten lakhs in the First Information Statement. The Executive Engineer, BSNL, Civil Division, Kollam made a report, wherein the BAIL APPL. NO.10227 OF 2011 :: 2 :: loss was assessed item wise. A total amount of `5,45,080/- was arrived at as the loss. Adding income tax, sales tax and others, the total loss was assessed at `7.08,610/-. 4. Accused No.7 surrendered before the investigating officer on 15.11.2011 and the other petitioners surrendered on 17.11.2011. They are in judicial custody. 5. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The applications for bail filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. In Hemanth Kumar and others v. Sub Inspector of Police (2011(4) KLT 288) and in Hemachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police (2011 (4) KLT 841), it was held that where public property is destroyed, the value of the same or even more can be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail. BAIL APPL. NO.10227 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners. Taking into account the loss sustained by the State, I am of the view that each of the petitioners should be directed to deposit `30,000/- before the Court having jurisdiction. The petitioners shall be released on bail only on such deposit. 9. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rupees Twenty five thousand each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall deposit `30,000/- each before the Court having jurisdiction. The petitioners shall be released on bail only on such deposit. If the petitioners were to be acquitted finding that they are not guilty, they would be entitled to get refund of the amount. Otherwise, the amount would be at the disposal of the court trying the case; b) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; BAIL APPL. NO.10227 OF 2011 :: 4 :: c) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; d) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; e) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/