Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
IPC Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 435 deals with the offence of mischief involving the use of fire or explosive substances with the intent to cause damage to property valued at one hundred rupees or more or, in the case of agricultural produce, ten rupees or more. This section addresses the serious nature of using fire or explosives to intentionally damage property, recognizing the potential for extensive harm and danger to public safety. The key elements of this offence are the use of fire or explosives and the intent to cause significant property damage.
Is IPC Section 435 bailable?
IPC Section 435 is bailable. While the offence involves potentially dangerous actions, it typically allows for the possibility of bail under judicial discretion due to the nature of property damage rather than direct physical harm to individuals.
IPC Section 435 Punishment
The punishment under IPC Section 435 involves imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also includes a liability to a fine. The severity of the punishment reflects the serious risk posed by using fire or explosives to cause damage, which can have far-reaching consequences.
Example of IPC Section 435
A real-life example of IPC Section 435 involved an individual who, in the act of revenge, set fire to a neighbour’s warehouse containing agricultural produce. The fire caused extensive damage, valued well over the ten rupees threshold for agricultural produce. The incident was reported to the authorities, and the individual responsible was arrested and charged under IPC Section 435 for using fire with the intent to cause significant damage. In court, he was found guilty, sentenced to five years in prison, and fined, highlighting the serious legal consequences of using fire to intentionally destroy property and the importance of deterring such dangerous actions.
