Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in Sunil Kumar H. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another & connected cases [BA 427 & 831 of 2025], has ruled that courts can mandate an accused to deposit an amount equivalent to the damage caused as a precondition for bail in cases of mischief under Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and house-trespass under Section 333 of BNS. The judgment, delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, emphasised that such a condition should be the norm, with exceptions granted only for compelling reasons. The Court underscored that this practice would deter acts of vandalism and send a strong message to society about accountability for property damage. While acknowledging concerns regarding financial hardship, the Court maintained that the deposit requirement was necessary to curb the destruction of private property and ensure that victims receive some form of restitution. It also suggested that the legislature consider incorporating this requirement into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), given the absence of a specific statutory mandate for such a condition.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioners, represented by Advocates Boby Thomas, Winston K. V., Vivek P. C., Arun Ashok, Neena James, and Anaswara K. P., argued that imposing a deposit condition for bail was arbitrary and financially burdensome, particularly for indigent accused persons. They contended that such a requirement could effectively deny bail to those unable to afford the deposit, thereby violating their fundamental rights. The petitioners cited Ramratan @ Ramswaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), where the Supreme Court had deprecated the imposition of financial conditions as a prerequisite for bail. They stressed that bail conditions should not amount to an indirect form of punishment before conviction.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Public Prosecutors Noushad K. A., I. Sheela Devi, Binesh K. N., and Hrithwik C. S., supported the High Court’s decision, asserting that such a condition was necessary to ensure deterrence and prevent the destruction of property. They pointed to Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India and Others (2018), where the Supreme Court upheld the imposition of conditional bail in cases involving damage to public or private property. The respondents argued that the deposit condition did not violate fundamental rights as the accused could recover the amount if acquitted. They maintained that the accused should bear some financial responsibility for their alleged actions until the judicial process determined their innocence or guilt.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan ruled in favour of imposing a deposit condition for bail in cases involving mischief and house trespass. The Court held that such a condition was essential to deter individuals from engaging in acts of vandalism and property damage. It noted that while bail should not be punitive, it should also not be granted unconditionally in cases where substantial property damage was alleged. The Court distinguished the present case from Ramratan and Ramesh Kumar, reasoning that those cases involved civil rights and financial disputes rather than criminal acts of destruction. The Court found the decision in Kodungallur Film Society more applicable, as it specifically dealt with violence leading to property damage.
The Court observed that the accused could be asked to deposit an amount equal to, less than, or even double the value of the damage caused, depending on the circumstances. It clarified that the deposit was not a fine but rather a temporary financial safeguard. The Court further ruled that if the accused was exonerated during the investigation or acquitted after trial, they could seek a refund of the deposited amount. However, if convicted, the deposited amount could be directed toward compensating the victims by the law.
The judgment also included strong remarks on the responsibility of individuals to respect the property of others. It stated that while financial hardships should be considered, they could not be an excuse to absolve individuals of accountability for vandalism. The Court recalled the Supreme Court’s words in Jolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin (1980), which held that poverty should not be criminalised. However, it differentiated between poverty and the deliberate destruction of property, emphasising that vandalism is a crime that should not go unpunished.
The Court further suggested that the legislature should consider amending the BNSS to explicitly provide for such a deposit condition in cases involving house trespass and mischief in residential and commercial premises. It stated that a legal framework ensuring compensation for victims while safeguarding the rights of the accused would be a progressive step in criminal jurisprudence.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the imposition of deposit conditions for bail in cases involving mischief and house trespass, ruling that such a measure was both legally sound and socially beneficial. It mandated that courts should follow this rule strictly, with deviations permitted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that bail conditions should be tailored to the nature of the alleged offence and should balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.