Attack Against Advocate Commissioner Is Attack Against Judiciary: Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused
The Kerala High Court observed that an attack against an Advocate Commissioner, while doing the assigned duty by a court of law, must be stemmed as an attack against the judiciary.
The Court observed thus while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the accused who allegedly obstructed the duty of the Advocate Commissioner, who was on official duty to execute an order of the Court. The accused purportedly “caught hold the hand and the sleeve of the apron” and “pushed her on a wall.”
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “It is heart breaking to note that the tendency to attack courts and officials of the court has been a new threat to the smooth functioning of the judicial system. If such acts/attempts are viewed lightly, the very existence of judicial system will be in peril, which would tantamount to deterioration of the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
Advocate P.M. Ziraj represented the petitioner, while P.P. MP Prashanth appeared for the respondents.
While she was on her official duty to execute the court's order, the accused obstructed the duty of the Advocate Commissioner and outraged her modesty. Subsequently, the accused was charged under Sections 353, 354, 341, and 342 of the IPC.
During the hearing for grant of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner claimed innocence citing the lack of any overt acts warranting registration of crime, while the prosecution asserted the severity of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation.
Upon examining the complaint and considering the gravity of the allegations, the Bench remarked, "An Advocate Commissioner is an officer of the court and the work of the Commissioner is part of administration of justice by the court. Therefore, attack against an Advocate Commissioner, while doing the assigned duty by a court of law to be stemmed as attack against the judiciary and such attacks could not be pardoned or viewed lightly."
Calling the incident “heart breaking,” the Court denied anticipatory bail to the accused. The Court called the tendency to attack courts and court officials as “a new threat to the smooth functioning of the judicial system.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed the accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer.
Cause Title: Anwar Sadique K. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:25580)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates P.M.Ziraj and Irfan Ziraj
Respondents: PP M P Prashanth
