The Kerala High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors, denying anticipatory bail to nine individuals accused of assaulting a practicing advocate. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasized that such attacks cannot be taken lightly, as they directly threaten the rule of law and the fundamental right of citizens to access justice.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an alleged incident on April 29, 2025, where the accused, described as political leaders, reportedly assaulted a lawyer who had drafted a complaint against them on behalf of a client. The prosecution claimed that the attack was brutal, resulting in grievous injuries, including a fractured rib and vertebrae, caused by dangerous weapons.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Upholds Right to Business, Orders Police Protection for Quarry Entrepreneur
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that the allegations were false and that no injuries were sustained by the complainant. However, the court found prima facie evidence to the contrary, including medical records and the complainant’s discharge card.
Justice Thomas made several critical observations in the ruling:
“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, the rule of law will suffer.”
Read also:- Kerala HC Rejects Bail Plea in Exam Paper Leak Case, Stresses Need for Custodial Interrogation
The court noted that the assault appeared to be motivated by professional enmity, as the lawyer had previously drafted a complaint (Annexure R3(a)) naming the first petitioner as the primary respondent. This circumstance, coupled with the severity of the injuries, indicated a deliberate attempt to intimidate the legal professional.
Need for Custodial Interrogation
The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was essential to recover the weapon used in the attack and to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. The court agreed, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v The State of Andhra Pradesh , which highlighted that pre-arrest bail could hinder effective interrogation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Seeks Independent Mechanism for BCI’s Law College Inspections
“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Insulating a person from arrest would make interrogation a mere ritual.”
Given the seriousness of the allegations and the need to recover evidence, the court dismissed the bail application, underscoring that protecting the accused at this stage would compromise the investigation.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Advocate with Contempt Notice for Threatening Judges!
Implications for the Legal Profession
The ruling sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding advocates, who play a pivotal role in ensuring access to justice. Attacks on lawyers not only harm individuals but also erode public trust in the legal system. By denying bail, the court reinforced the principle that such acts of violence must be met with stringent legal consequences.
Case Title: Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 7805 of 2025
Petitioner’s Counsel: Sri. Dipu James, Shri. A AL Fayad, Sri. K.M. Firoz
Respondent’s Counsel: Siri. Najah Ebrahim V.P., Sri. T. Shajith, Sri. Noushad K.A. (PP)