Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Kerala High Court
Assault On Advocate For Drafting Complaint Cannot Be Taken Lightly: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Nine Accused
|The attack allegedly stemmed from Advocate's professional role in drafting a legal complaint against the accused on behalf of his client.
The Kerala High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to nine individuals accused of launching a violent assault on an Advocate.
The attack allegedly stemmed from his professional role in drafting a legal complaint against the accused on behalf of his client.
A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, "Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly. The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through Advocates. If Advocates are attacked for drafting complaints rule of law will suffer."
Advocate Dipu James appeared for the petitioners, and Advocate Ahammed Mizaar V.P. appeared for the Respondents.
The case before the Court involved a bail application filed by nine individuals accused of attacking an advocate in April this year. According to the prosecution, the assault was severe h suffered chest trauma and a fractured vertebra due to the beating. The prosecution further alleged that the motive behind the attack was retaliation, as he had prepared a legal complaint against the accused.
All nine accused were charged under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, and 296(b).
The accused denied all allegations and sought anticipatory bail, claiming that no such attack had taken place and that the charges were baseless.
The Court reviewed the complaint that he had drafted and noted a significant detail: the first accused in the present case was also the primary individual named in that original complaint. This connection, the Court held, indicated a clear motive for the attack.
“The attack in the instant case appears to be brutal,” the Court remarked.
Considering the severity of the injuries inflicted, the deliberate targeting of a legal professional, and the broader implications for public confidence in the legal system, the Court concluded that the accused did not deserve the protection of anticipatory bail.
Cause Title: Riyas & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2025:KER:53855]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Dipu James, A Al Fayad, and KM Firoz.
Respondents: Advocates Ahammed Mizaar VP, Noushad K.A., T. Shajith, Najah Ebrahim VP