ORDER : The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.465/2019 of Perinthalmanna police station. This petition is filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for deleting or modifying one of the conditions in Annexure-I order passed by the Court of Session, Manjeri on granting him anticipatory bail in the case. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 09.08.2019, the petitioner demolished the bund of Kattuppara lift irrigation canal and caused a loss of Rs.1,21,000/- to the Government. 3. The petitioner filed application seeking pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session, Manjeri. As per Annexure-I order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,21,000/-in the court below which is equal to the amount of loss caused to the Government. The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, has approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 of the Code for modifying/deleting it. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the first information report in the case. In Annexure-I order, it is stated that the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(2) of the the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Public (Private?) Property and Payment of Compensation Ordinance, 2019. This is evidently not correct. The Ordinance does not contain any subsection to Section 3. The Ordinance applies to damage caused to private property. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he demolished the lift irrigation canal bund and caused loss to the Government. Therefore, evidently the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 6. In Hemanth Kumar v. Sub Inspector of Police : 2011(4) KHC 89 : 2011(4) KLT 288 , this Court has held as follows: “In cases where public property is destroyed, the value of the same or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail to them. Otherwise, the loss sustained to the State would not be realised at all. Courts cannot be mute spectators to the wanton destruction of public property”. 7. Otherwise, the loss sustained to the State would not be realised at all. Courts cannot be mute spectators to the wanton destruction of public property”. 7. In Hemachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police : 2011 (4) KHC 689 : 2011(4) KLT 841 , this Court declined to reconsider the decision in Hemanth Kumar (supra). This Court observed that a rigorous approach is contemplated in the matter of granting bail to an accused involved in offences committed under the Act. This Court further observed that the offence of destruction of public property is to be viewed differently from offences affecting individuals and that deposit of amount, which is equivalent to the loss caused to the Government, as a condition for granting bail to the accused in such cases would be justified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the decisions in Hemanth Kumar and Hemachandran (supra) are applicable only to cases involving destruction of public property in connection with hartals, strikes etc. I find no reasonable basis for accepting such a contention. The purpose of insisting deposit of cash, as a condition for granting bail in cases involving destruction of public property, is to recover the amount of loss caused to the Government without any cumbersome procedure, in case of conviction of the accused in the case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Lekha v. State of Kerala : 2019(3) KHC 983 : 2019(3) KLT 330 and contended that deposit of cash cannot be insisted as a condition for granting bail. In Lekha (supra), I had occasion to hold that the Court shall not, normally, make any direction for deposit of cash as a condition for granting bail. But, this Court had also held, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State : (2013) 15 SCC 570 , that it is not totally impermissible for the Court to insist on deposit of cash as a condition for granting bail in appropriate cases. Of course, Lekha (supra) does not specifically mention that in cases involving destruction of public property, deposit of cash could be insisted by the Court as a condition for granting bail. It does not mean that, the earlier decisions in Hemanth Kumar and Hemachandran (supra), have got no binding force. Of course, Lekha (supra) does not specifically mention that in cases involving destruction of public property, deposit of cash could be insisted by the Court as a condition for granting bail. It does not mean that, the earlier decisions in Hemanth Kumar and Hemachandran (supra), have got no binding force. There is no real conflict between Lekha (supra) and the decisions in Hemanth Kumar and Hemachandran (supra). Deposit of cash, as a condition for granting bail, shall be insisted in respect of offences under the Act, involving destruction of public property. 9. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he demolished an irrigation canal bund and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,21,000/-. The court below has directed him to deposit only that much amount as a condition for granting him pre-arrest bail. I find no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order. There is no sufficient ground to modify the aforesaid condition by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.