Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners, nine individuals implicated in Crime No. 369/2025 registered by the Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode, sought anticipatory bail in relation to a violent incident. The court refused to grant relief, holding that custodial interrogation was essential for proper investigation.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas concluded that the allegations against the accused, who allegedly assaulted a lawyer for drafting a complaint against them, were grave. The court recorded that the injuries caused to the complainant were serious and involved the use of dangerous weapons. Furthermore, the judge noted that the recovery of the weapon of offence was pending and that pre-arrest bail could impede effective interrogation. The bail application was, therefore, dismissed in its entirety.

Also Read: Registered Will Raises Presumption Of Genuineness | Supreme Court Confirms Second Wife’s Exclusive Ownership, Says Burden To Disprove Validity Lies On Opponent

The present case concerns Crime No. 369/2025 of Koduvally Police Station in Kozhikode District. The complaint stems from an incident that occurred on 29 April 2025 at approximately 10:00 p.m. The accused allegedly intercepted and physically assaulted the de-facto complainant, who is a practicing lawyer, while he was traveling on his motorcycle. The alleged motive for the attack was the lawyer's involvement in drafting a complaint against the accused individuals.

The bail application was filed by nine petitioners, all residents of Narikkuni, Kozhikode. The petitioners were represented by advocates Sri. Dipu James, Shri. A Al Fayad, and Sri. K.M. Firoz. The State of Kerala was represented by Public Prosecutor Sri. Noushad K.A. The Station House Officer, Koduvally Police Station, was also a respondent, alongside the de-facto complainant Asif Rahman, who was impleaded as an additional second respondent via Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2025.

According to the prosecution, the complainant sustained grievous injuries in the form of fractures to the chest and vertebrae. Medical records, including an outpatient ticket from Government General Hospital, Calicut, dated 30 April 2025, and a discharge card dated 5 May 2025, were submitted to substantiate the claims. These documents were marked as Annexure R3(b) and R3(c), respectively.

Additionally, the prosecution submitted Annexure R3(a), a copy of the petition that was drafted by the complainant on behalf of his client. This petition reportedly targeted the accused persons, and its drafting is alleged to have provoked the assault. The letter sent by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thamarassery, dated 21 June 2025, was marked as Annexure R3(d).

The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that the allegations were false. They asserted that no such assault had occurred and challenged the authenticity of the medical documents. Specifically, they contended that the discharge date mentioned in Annexure R2(b) was incorrect and that the document was concocted. The petitioners denied any involvement in the incident and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The defence produced various annexures including:

• Annexure A1: Copy of the FIR in Crime No. 369/2025

• Annexure A2: OP ticket dated 30 April 2025 from Government General Hospital, Calicut

• Annexure A3: Complaint dated 30 April 2025 submitted by the 1st petitioner

• Annexure A4: Order dated 10 June 2025 passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in Crl.M.C. No. 694 of 2025

The petitioners stated that they were being targeted due to their political affiliations and public roles. They argued that the case was built on professional rivalry and that their arrest would serve no investigational purpose.

The public prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail plea, stating that the allegations were serious and supported by medical evidence. They stressed the need for custodial interrogation to recover the weapon used in the assault and to determine the complete facts behind the attack.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas recorded that the issue involved a grave allegation of attacking a practicing lawyer who had merely executed his professional duty. The court stated “Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly.”

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the injuries. It was observed “The defacto complainant had drafted a complaint against the petitioners on behalf of his client… The said circumstance indicates a motive for the alleged assault on the defacto complainant.”

Referring to the materials presented, the judge stated “The attack in the instant case appears to be brutal in the light of Annexure R2(b).”

Justice Thomas also dealt with the argument that the discharge card was concocted. He recorded “The contention that the said document is a concocted document is not supported by any material.”

Addressing the requirement of custodial interrogation, the court drew support from the Supreme Court's judgement in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 LiveLaw SC 598). The judge quoted “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail.”

Continuing with the citation, the court recorded “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 assessing the overall merit of the petitioners’ arguments, the court held “Petitioners are stated to be political leaders who are alleged to have assaulted a practicing lawyer… Taking note of the nature of injuries inflicted as well as the nature of weapons allegedly used by the accused, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is necessary.”

Also Read: Police Inaction Against Obstruction Of Quarry Operations Violates Article 19(1)(g) | Kerala High Court Orders Protection For Lessee After Vigilante Blockade Of Scientific Survey Near Water Tank

After weighing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the documentary evidence, the court declined to grant the pre-arrest bail. The final order was recorded as follows:

“Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the requirement of the recovery of the weapon of the offence, the petitioners cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.”

Accordingly, the court issued a clear directive: “Hence, this bail application is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Dipu James, Shri. A Al Fayad, Sri. K.M. Firoz

For the Respondents: Shri. Najah Ebrahim V.P., Sri. T. Shajith, Sri. Noushad K.A. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Title: Riyas & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:53855

Case Number: B.A. No. 7805 of 2025

Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas