This is an application filed by the first accused in Crime No.484/2014 of Chadayamangalam Police station under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 16.4.2014 at about 3.30 p.m the petitioner and another trespassed into Beverage Corporation outlet at Ayoor and the first accused took a beer bottle and struck on the head of the defacto complainant and also caused injury to another staff and caused damage to the articles kept in the outlet to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and thereby both of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 332, and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PDPP Act').
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and in fact the incident happened from the outlet when the staff of the outlet tried to sell the article out of turn, which was challenged by the petitioner and another accused and they have been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail from 17.4.2014 onwards.
4. The application was opposed by the Prosecutor on the ground that investigation of the case is not over and huge loss has been caused to the Beverage Corporation outlet on account of the wrongful act of the petitioner and another accused.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary file.
6. It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, one of the injured, who is an employee in the Beverage Corporation outlet in Ayoor against the present petitioner and another accused alleging the offences under Sections 452, 324 332, 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. It is seen from the case diary file that on account of the wrongful act of the accused persons, loss of Rs.10,000/- has been caused to the public property as well. The petitioner was arrested on 16.4.2014 and produced before the Magistrate on 17.4.2014 and he is in judicial custody from that day onwards. It is seen from the case diary file that second accused was also arrested. This incident which reflects the ill effect of consumption of alcohol. In the decisions reported in Hemachandran v. S.I. of Police (2011(4) KLT 841) and Satheesh Kumar v. Malabar Devaswom Board (2011 ((4) KHC 689), this Court has held that in cases where damage has been caused to the public property, bail can be granted on condition of deposit of the amount of damage caused as a condition for granting bail. The Prosecutor had no case that the petitioner has got any criminal background earlier. By this time he might have understood the gravity of the offence and its consequences. Considering the period of pre trial detention of the accused person and also the stage of the investigation, this Court feels that bail can be granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions. So, the application is allowed with the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara and also further condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- being the share of damage caused to the public property on the date of execution of the bond itself.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9 a.m and 10 a.m for a period of three months and thereafter on the last Saturday of every month between the same timings till the final report is filed.
iii. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation in connection with the above crime as and when required in writing to do so till the final report is filed.
iv. The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
v. The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime of similar nature during bail period.
vi. The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara or the court to which it will be committed to trial till the disposal of the case.
vii. The amount so deposited shall not be disbursed to the petitioner till the disposal of the case. If the petitioner is acquitted in the case, then the amount can be released to him. If he is convicted, then the amount can be directed to be adjusted towards the share of compensation to be recovered from the petitioner as directed in the decisions cited supra.
With the above conditions, the application is allowed.
Sd/ cl K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P.S to Judge