Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 3 Booked For Vandalising Lawyer's Office, Appreciates Advocates' Association For Lending Support

While granting bail to three men accused of entering an advocate's office and causing destruction of property, the Kerala High Court appreciated the participation of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association noting that when a lawyer has a grievance the entire lawyer community and the association come together to lend its support.

The President of Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA), Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy had appeared for the Association, in which the complainant advocate is practicing, stating that all members of the Bar are together agitating against this vandalism.

Shenoy submitted before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan that if any criminal offence is committed against a lawyer or towards his office, that amounts to interfering the administration of justice.

The high court however said, "It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. If the defacto complainant is occupying a room of the petitioners without any authority, their remedy is to approach the jurisdictional civil court. The petitioners have no right to take law into their hands. I think there is force in the argument of Adv. Shenoy. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy has no right to intervene in this case because he is not even impleaded in this case. But Adv. Shenoy submitted that he is appearing in this case on behalf of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and he is authorised to appear. I am happy to see that, when there is a grievance to a lawyer, the lawyer community is coming together and even the High Court Association is taking steps to support the lawyer community. The same is to be appreciated".

However with respect to the main offences alleged against the petitioner i.e. under Sections 331(4) (Punishment for house-trespass or housebreaking) and 305(a) (Theft in a dwelling house, or means of transportation or place of worship, etc) of the BNS, the court noted that maximum punishment that can be given for the above offence is only upto 7 years.

One of the accused had leased that room to the advocate for 30 years. The prosecution alleged that the owner along with five other people formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the Advocate's office at 5am on November 25 when the advocate was not there and destructed his property. They allegedly threw away his coat, gown, files, name board of the lawyer. The complaint says that his passbook, cheque book and an amount of Rs. 27,000 was missing. In the instant case, 3 accused had approached the High Court for bail.

The High Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another which said that court should take a lenient view if the punishment is only up to 7 years.

"In the light of the above principle, this Court considered the contentions of the petitioners. I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioners are in custody from 29.11.2024 onwards. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M. till final report is filed," the court said.

Noting the principle of jail is exception and bail is rule, the high court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of Enforcement.

The court thereafter granted the men bail subject to certain conditions.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order