In a strong articulation of the role of lawyers in upholding access to justice, the Kerala High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to nine individuals accused of brutally assaulting a practicing advocate. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the bail application, warned that violence against legal professionals strikes at the very foundation of the legal system.
“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,” the Court stated emphatically.
The bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was filed by nine petitioners, including local political leaders. The FIR alleged offences 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.
According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, a lawyer, was riding his motorcycle around 10:00 p.m., when the accused intercepted him and inflicted grievous injuries, including rib and vertebral fractures, allegedly using dangerous weapons. The alleged motive was linked to the lawyer’s drafting of a complaint against the first petitioner on behalf of his client.
Rejecting the petitioners' contention that the allegations were fabricated and the medical records manipulated, the Court found the injuries serious and the explanation inadequate. The Court held that the discharge summary submitted in support of the complaint prima facie corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that success in interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. In fact, the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary, both to ascertain the motive and to recover the weapon of offence. It concluded that the nature of the attack, the professional capacity in which the advocate acted, and the prima facie evidence of serious injuries warranted denial of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
Case Title: Riyas and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No.: Bail Appl. No. 7805 of 2025
Coram: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Dipu James, A Al Fayad, and K.M.Firoz
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Najah Ebrahim V.P., T.Shajith, and Public Prosecutor Noushad K. A.
Picture Source :
