Kerala High Court
K.K.Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
1
"C.R"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
CRIME NO.263/2021 OF Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.788 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 28, 31 & 32:
1 K.K.SHAJI
AGED 47 YEARS
KOCHUKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
2 SEBASTIAN
AGED 34 YEARS
PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., AYYAMPUZHA
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683581
3 KARTHIK.K
AGED 35 YEARS
ALAPPAT HOUSE, THONIKKADAVU, ATHIKKAYAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FROM PADUTHASAM PETTY,
NARALAMPALLY P.O., OOTHAMKARA TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI
DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 689711
4 RAJEEV KUMAR K.P. @ RAJEEV PRABHAKAR
AGED 57 YEARS
JAYASREE VILASOM, CHETHACKAL P.O., CHETHACKAL
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
2
5 ANSON THOMAS
AGED 70 YEARS
KANNADIKKAL HOUSE, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
6 SARATH.S
AGED 34 YEARS
VECHUTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
7 SIBY MAMMEN JOSEPH
AGED 53 YEARS
NIRAMPLACKAL HOUSE, PODIPPARA, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689677
8 ANILKUMAR K.P
AGED 54 YEARS
KALLOOR VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 68967
9 SASIDHARAN PILAI
AGED 71 YEARS
VECHUTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689677
10 MATHEW T.A
AGED 48 YEARS
VECHUTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689677
11 PRADEEP KUMAR
AGED 59 YEARS
VARADA BHAVAN, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
12 MOHANAN NAIR
AGED 68 YEARS
KALLOOR VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
13 AJAY.P.SHAJI
AGED 24 YEARS
PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
3
14 SOMAN @ MONACHAN
AGED 48 YEARS
THADATHIL VEEDU, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
15 SREEJITH.S.R
AGED 44 YEARS
PANTHALACKAL HOUSE, PODIPPARA, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
16 PRASANTH P.D
AGED 31 YEARS
PARAYIL THAZHAYIL HOUSE, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
17 VARGHESE CHACKO
AGED 60 YEARS
ELAVUNKAL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., KOLLAMULA
VILLAGE, PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686511
18 RADHAKRISHNAN V.S
AGED 70 YEARS
NIRAMVANDANGAL HOUSE, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
19 SUNILKUMAR N.P
AGED 51 YEARS
KOTTACKAL, PODIPPARA, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
20 MOHANAN P.N
AGED 44 YEARS
PARANGAMOOTTIL HOUSE, EDAMON P.O., CHETHACKAL
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689676
21 ANEESH KUMAR.S
AGED 40 YEARS
OLICKAL VEEDU, MANNADISSALA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686511
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
4
22 ANILKUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS
VEZHAKKADU VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 68967
23 VARADARAJAN
AGED 71 YEARS
EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA
VILLAGE, KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
686511
24 REJI.T.BABY
AGED 46 YEARS
THEKKEVEEDU, PODIPPARA, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
25 SATHEESH.K.PANICKER
AGED 58 YEARS
NAITHANIYIL VEEDU, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA
VILLAGE, KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
686511
26 THOMAS VARGHESE @ TONY
AGED 61 YEARS
VALEL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA VILLAGE,
KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686511
27 JAYAN GOPINATH
AGED 44 YEARS
PUNNAVELIL VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
28 RISHIKESHAN NAIR
AGED 56 YEARS
VECHUTHUNDIYIL VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
29 VINOD.T.DAS
AGED 45 YEARS
PERUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
5
30 RENJITH.M.NAIR
AGED 43 YEARS
KALLOOR VEEDU, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT & INJURED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
689672
3 SHAJI THOMAS
AGED 62 YEARS
MANGALATH, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689677
OTHER PRESENT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DEVADAS H. MALLAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
6
"C.R"
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 5613 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 28, 31 and 32 in
CC No.788/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Ranni (‘Trial Court’), which has
originated from Crime No.263/2021 registered by the
Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 427 and 447 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Kerala
Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of
Compensation Act, 2019 (‘Act’, for short).
2. The petitioners have filed the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case to quash the FIR, the Final Report and
all further proceedings in the above case on the assertion
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
7
that, even if the allegations in the above documents are
taken on their face value and in their entirety, the same
would not attract the offences alleged against the
petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that, on
27.08.2020 at 16.00 hours, the accused persons, in
prosecution of their common intention, formed an unlawful
assembly and, with the help of two excavators, demolished
the compound wall of the property of the de facto
complainant (third respondent) and the destroyed the
coconut and pepper plantations in the property and caused
a loss of Rupees Four Lakh to the third respondent.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, as the petitioners have received summons from the
Trial Court, they are prepared to appear before the said
court and seek bail. Therefore, the petitioners would be
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
8
satisfied if this Court directs the Trial Court to consider
the petitioners’ bail applications, without insisting on any
deposit as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act.
6. The above submission necessitates an
examination of the scope and ambit of Section 8 of the Act,
which postulates a special condition governing the grant
of bail to persons accused of offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. As the question essentially
revolves around the interpretation of the said provision, it
is profitable to extract the same, which reads as follows:
“8. Special provision as to Bail. – No person accused under Section
5 or Section 6 shall be released on bail on execution of bond by
two sureties and depositing in the court the amount not less than
one half the value of the property destroyed or damaged as may be
determined by the court on the basis of police report or on
furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount, unless the
prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release”.
7. Equally relevant are the definitions in Section 2
of the Act, which reads thus:
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “damaging act” means an act, causing damage or loss or
destruction to any private property due to communal riot, hartal,
bandh, demonstration, march, procession, blockade of road traffic
or similar assembly by whatever name called, committed by an
CNR : KLHC0104982420262026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 20269
individual, group of individuals or organisation whether social,
religious or political;
(b) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(c) “private property” means any property whether movable or
immovable including any machinery, other than public property as
defined under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984 (Central Act 3 of 1984), which is owned by or in the
possession of or under the control of any person or organisation or
institution or entity.”
8. A reading of the above provisions makes it
evident that the Act is intended to provide an effective
mechanism for protecting private property from damage
caused during communal disturbances, hartals,
demonstrations, processions and similar assemblies, while
simultaneously ensuring that the victims of such acts
receive appropriate compensation. However, the
allegations must disclose a “damaging act” as defined
under Section 2(a), resulting in damage to “private
property” within the meaning of Section 2(c), and such
damage must have occurred in the course of one of the
acts specified under Section 2 (a). It is only upon the
existence of these attributes that the offence under
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
10
Section 5 gets attracted and, consequently, Section 8
comes into play. Nonetheless, the condition prescribed
under Section 8 is inextricably linked with the applicability
of the substantive provisions of the Act, for which there
should be a prima facie judicial assessment that the
allegations disclose an offence under the Act. The
provision cannot be construed as authorising the
mechanical imposition of a monetary condition, as the
police have included Section 5. If such an interpretation is
permitted, it would become inconsistent with the scheme
of the Act and undermine the fundamental principles
governing the exercise of judicial discretion in matters
concerning personal liberty.
9. The statutory framework governing the
determination of compensation also assumes significance
in the present context. Section 9 of the Act provides the
mechanism for quantifying and awarding compensation
consequent upon a conviction under the Act. The provision
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
11
reads thus:
“Section 9 – Determination of compensation- When court on
conviction for an offence under this Act impose sentence it shall
order payment of compensation regarding the loss sustained to any
person, organization, institution or entity for any damage or loss or
destruction caused due to the commission of offence, based on a
report furnished by such officer, in such manner and in such form
as may be prescribed and such compensation shall be recoverable
under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Central Act 2 of 1974) or as if an arrear of public revenue due on
land under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act,
1968 (15 of 1968)”.
10. In exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 11 of the Act, the Government of Kerala has
framed the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private
Property and Payment of Compensation Rules, 2022. Rule
3, which prescribes the procedure for the assessment of
loss, reads as follows:
“(1) A police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall submit
report regarding the loss provided in Section 9 of the Act before
the court concerned in the Form under these rules.
(2) For the purpose of preparing report under sub-rule (1), the
officer concerned shall have the power to require the service and
expert opinion of the Government Departments concerned”.
11. A harmonious reading of Section 9 of the Act and
Rule 3 of the Rules leaves little room for doubt that the
Legislature has contemplated a structured mechanism for
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
12
the determination of compensation. The assessment of
damage is not intended to rest upon a subjective estimate
or a mere assertion made by the investigating agency. On
the contrary, the statute mandates the preparation of a
formal report by a police officer not below the rank of an
Inspector, who is authorised, where felt so, to obtain
expert opinion from the Government Department.
12. Equally significant is the fact that Section 9
contemplates the determination and recovery of
compensation upon conviction of the accused. Although
Section 8 authorises the Court to insist upon the deposit of
not less than one-half of the assessed value while
considering a bail application, such a requirement is only a
provisional statutory safeguard. It cannot be equated with
a final determination contemplated under Section 9.
13. It is also important to consider the expression
“the value of the property destroyed or damaged as may
be determined by the court based on police report” in
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
13
Section 8 of the Act.
14. The Legislature has consciously employed the
words “determined by the court” and not “assessed by the
police.” The language indicates that the police report
constitutes only one of the materials before the Court. It is
ultimately the Court which has to determine, on a prima
facie consideration of the available materials, the value of
the property alleged to have been damaged.
15. Importantly, before embarking upon the exercise
of determining the quantum of damage, the Court must
first satisfy itself that the allegations in the FIR, Final
Report or complaint prima facie attract an offence under
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The jurisdiction to invoke
Section 8 arises only when the offence alleged falls within
the ambit of the Act. Unless the ingredients constituting a
“damaging act” under Section 2(a) and damage to “private
property” under Section 2(c) are prima facie made out, the
special condition prescribed under Section 8 cannot
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
14
automatically come into operation. Thus, the exercise
contemplated under Section 8 is two-fold. Firstly, the
Court must independently assess whether the allegations,
if accepted at their face value, disclose an offence
punishable under the Act. Secondly, if the Court reaches
such a prima facie conclusion, it must determine the value
of the property alleged to have been damaged based on
relevant materials, including–but not confined to–the
police report. Both the above exercises require the
application of the judicial mind.
16. Unfortunately, this Court is coming across
several orders passed by the jurisdictional courts directing
the accused persons to deposit one-half of the amount
mentioned in the police report as a matter of course,
without examining whether the statutory ingredients of
the offence are prima facie attracted or whether the
assessment of damage is supported by any material. The
orders reproduce the figure mentioned by the
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
15
investigating officer without recording any independent
reasons or satisfaction. In some cases, the amounts
assessed by the investigating agency run into lakhs of
rupees. Persons with no financial means or capacity find it
difficult to comply with such onerous conditions and
indefinitely languish in judicial custody. The right to seek
bail thereby becomes illusory, not because the Court has
found their detention necessary for the administration of
criminal justice, but solely because of their inability to
mobilise the funds required to secure their release on bail.
17. Judicial discretion, particularly in matters
affecting personal liberty, cannot be exercised in a
ritualistic manner. The duty of a criminal court is not
merely to enforce the literal words of a statute but to
apply them in a manner consistent with constitutional
principles and the broader objectives of criminal
jurisprudence. It is, therefore, imperative that every court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act records
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
16
its prima facie satisfaction regarding the applicability of
the Act, independently evaluates the materials relied upon
for assessing the damage, and only thereafter determines
whether the statutory condition regarding deposit
deserves to be insisted upon in the facts and
circumstances of the individual case. Only such an
approach would preserve the delicate balance between
safeguarding the rights of victims of property damage and
protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty
guaranteed to an accused until he is found guilty.
18. The above discussion leads to the broader
question regarding the discretion of the Court while
imposing conditions for the grant of bail. Although Section
8 of the Act incorporates a condition governing the release
of an accused on bail, the exercise of power by the
criminal court cannot ignore the constitutional mandate
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
19. The law relating to bail is founded upon the
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
17
equally well-established principle that every accused is
presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved in
accordance with law. The object of granting bail is neither
punitive nor compensatory. Bail serves a limited purpose–
namely, to secure the presence of the accused during
investigation and trial while preserving his fundamental
right to liberty.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy and others
[(2000) 5 SCC 712] has observed that the right to life is
one of the basic human rights. A prisoner, be he a convict,
undertrial, or detenu, does not cease to be a human being.
wherein it is observed as
21. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another [(2018) 3 SCC 22], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has succinctly stated thus:
“6. xx xx xx The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the
discretion of the judge hearing the matter, and though that
discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a
humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the
CNR : KLHC0104982420262026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 202618
grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
22. The above principle has been reiterated in
Kunal Kumar Tiwari @ Kunal Kumar v. State of Bihar
and another [(2018) 16 SCC 74] by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and by explaining the true ambit of the expression
“interest of justice” occurring in Section 437(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is observed as follows:
“The phrase ‘interest of justice’ as used under clause (c) of Section
437(3) means good administration of justice or advancing the trial
process. Such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend
beyond the ends of the provision.”
23. The above exposition assumes considerable
relevance while construing Section 8 of the Act. Although
the Legislature has consciously imposed an additional
statutory condition relating to deposit of compensation,
such a condition cannot be interpreted in isolation from
the settled principles governing bail jurisprudence.
24. In Munish Bhasin & Others v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2009) 4
SCC 45], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
19
held that the Courts shall not impose freakish conditions in
bail orders.
25. In a recent decision in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics
Control Bureau and Others [(2024) 8 SCC 415], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that conditions imposed
while granting bail cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or
disproportionate and must remain confined to the
purposes recognised under Section 437(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Court further emphasised that
constitutional rights can be curtailed only to the minimum
extent necessary for securing the administration of
criminal justice.
26. Viewed in the above perspective, Section 8 of the
Act cannot be understood as creating an inflexible
mandate requiring every accused to deposit one-half of the
amount mentioned in the police report irrespective of the
facts of the case. Such an interpretation may prove
counter-productive, giving undue weight to the
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
20
investigating officer’s opinion and resulting in the
continued incarceration of the accused due to their
financial incapacity.
27. This Court is conscious that the Legislature,
while enacting Section 8, intended to discourage
indiscriminate destruction of private property and to
safeguard the interests of victims. The objective sought is
salutary. Therefore, a careful balance has to be struck
between preserving the liberty of the accused and
protecting the legitimate interests of persons who have
allegedly suffered loss or damage.
28. It is in the above backdrop that Section 8
requires to be applied. The provision obliges the Court to
exercise an informed judicial discretion after
independently satisfying itself regarding the applicability
of the Act, the existence of prima facie material, and the
correctness of the assessment relied upon for determining
the value of the alleged damage. Only thereafter can the
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
21
Court consider whether insistence on the statutory deposit
is warranted in the facts of the particular case and
whether alternative modes of securing the amount,
consistent with the interests of justice, may appropriately
be accepted.
29. In the present proceedings, prima facie, this
Court is of the view that an interpretation of Section 8,
which compels every accused, irrespective of the facts of
the case or the materials supporting the assessment of
damage, to deposit one-half of the amount mentioned in
the police report as an inexorable condition for bail and
may give rise to serious issues touching upon the
infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Since the vires of the provision is not under challenge in
the present proceedings, the question is left open for
consideration.
30. Having regard to the nature of the relief now
sought, I do not consider it necessary to examine the
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
22
merits of the allegations contained in the FIR or the Final
Report or to express any opinion regarding the
sustainability of the prosecution. Any observation on those
aspects may prejudice either side at the trial. The
controversy presently falls within a narrow compass,
namely, the manner in which the Trial Court should
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act while
considering the bail applications.
31. In the facts of the present case, since the
petitioners have already received summons from the Trial
Court and have expressed their willingness to appear
before the said Court and seek regular bail, the interests
of justice would be adequately served by directing the
Trial Court to consider their applications expeditiously in
the light of the principles discussed above.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
disposed of permitting the petitioners to appear before the
Trial Court on or before 30.07.2026 and file appropriate
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
23
applications for bail. On such appearance, the Trial Court
shall consider and dispose of the applications, preferably
on the very same day, after affording the prosecution an
opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law. If,
upon an independent consideration of the materials on
record, the Trial Court forms a prima facie opinion that
the petitioners are required to comply with the
requirements contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, it
shall determine the amount in accordance with law, and
shall also consider whether the interests of justice would
be adequately safeguarded by permitting the petitioners to
deposit the amount within a reasonable time period.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is ordered
accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/dkr
CNR : KLHC010498242026
2026:KER:53590
CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
24
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5613 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN
CRIME NO.263/2021 OF RANNI POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED
24.03.2021
Annexure 2 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.263/2021 OF
RANNI POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT DATED 30.05.2022 ALONG WITH 161
STATEMENTS OF CWS 2 TO 4
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PREVENTION OF
DAMAGES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION ACT, 2019 ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATED VERSION
