Kerala High Court: The present application was filed for anticipatory bail by the petitioners-nine accused who were charged under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190 and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (‘BNS’), for assaulting an advocate over drafting a complaint against them. A Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., dismissed the bail application and observed that if an advocate was attacked for carrying out professional duties, that is, for drafting a complaint against the accused persons, then the rule of law would suffer.
The defacto complainant was a lawyer who was travelling on his motorcycle on 29-4-2025 at about 10:00 p.m., when the accused restrained and brutally assaulted him. It was submitted that the advocate suffered chest trauma with fracture as well as vertebrae fracture and therefore grievous injuries were occasioned by use of dangerous weapons and hence, custodial interrogation was necessary. The complainant also submitted that the accused were political leaders and because the advocate drafted a complaint against them, they assaulted him and therefore custodial interrogation was necessary, especially to recover the weapon of offence. However, the accused contended that the allegations were false, and the accused had never assaulted the complainant, nor had he suffered any injury, and therefore custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The Court noted that the first accused was the first opposite party in the complaint, indicating the motive for the alleged assault. The Court referred to P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, wherein it was held that custodial interrogation was qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who was well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail and insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. The Court held that considering the nature of injuries inflicted as well as the nature of weapons allegedly used by the accused, custodial interrogation was necessary.
The Court opined that assaulting an advocate for drafting a complaint could not be taken lightly as the fundamental right to have access to courts of law was enabled largely through advocates. If they were attacked for drafting complaints, the rule of law would suffer. The Court, noting the seriousness of the allegations and requirement for the recovery of the weapon, dismissed the bail application emphasising that the accused could not be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
[Riyas v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 7805 of 2025, decided on 17-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Accused: Dipu James, A. Al Fayad and K.M. Firoz, Advs.
For the Respondents: Najah Ebrahim V.P., T. Shajit, Noushad K.A. (PP).
