Kerala High Court grants bail to three accused of vandalizing law office, appreciates Bar Association for support

While granting bail to three men accused of entering a lawyer’s office and causing destruction of property, the Kerala High Court appreciated the participation of the High Court Bar Association Kerala Court, noting that when a lawyer has a grievance, the entire community of lawyers and the association comes together. to provide support.

Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) President Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy appeared on behalf of the association in which the plaintiff lawyer practices, declaring that all members of the bar are campaigning together against this vandalism.

Shenoy submissive before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan that if a criminal offense is committed against a lawyer or his office, it amounts to obstructing the administration of justice.

The High Court, however, said: “It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. If the de facto complainant occupies a room of the petitioners without any authority, his remedy is to approach the competent civil court. The petitioners have no right to take the law into their own hands. I think there is force in the argument of Adv. Shenoy. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy has no right to intervene in this matter because he is not even involved in this matter. But the adv. Shenoy submitted that he was appearing in this case on behalf of the Kerala High Court Bar Association and was authorized to appear. I am happy to see that when a lawyer is presented with a grievance, the bar community comes together and even the High Court Association takes steps to support the bar community. The same should be appreciated“.

However, with regard to the main offenses alleged against the petitioner, namely under sections 331(4) (Punishment for trespass or break-in into a house) and 305(a) (Theft from a dwelling house, or conveyance or place of worship, etc. ) of the BNS, the court noted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the above offense is only up to 7 years.

One of the accused had rented this room to the lawyer for 30 years. The prosecution alleged that the owner and five others gathered in an unlawful assembly, broke into the lawyer’s office at 5 a.m. on November 25, while the lawyer was not there , and destroyed his property. They allegedly threw away his coat, his gown, his files and the name of the lawyer. The complaint states that his passbook, check book and an amount of Rs. 27,000 were missing. In the present case, three accused had approached the High Court seeking bail.

The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another who said the court should take a lenient stance if the sentence can only go up to 7 years.

“In the light of the above principle, this Court has considered the contentions of the petitioners. I am of the view that the petitioners may be released on bail after imposing strict conditions. The petitioners are in custody from 29.11.2024. It may there be an instruction towards the applicants must appear before the investigator every Monday at 10 a.m. until the submission of the final report“, the court said.

Noting that the principle of imprisonment is an exception and bail is the rule, the High Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court, including Manish Sisodia v. Management of Application And Chidambaram. P c. Directorate of execution.

The court later granted the men bail under certain conditions.

Counsel for the applicants: Advocates P. Vijayakumar Puthiyakovilakam, B. Harrylal