Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Lawyer's Office Vandalism Case, Cautions Against Taking Law Into Own Hands
The Kerala High Court, in Vijith VC & Ors v State of Kerala, granted bail to three individuals accused of trespass and vandalism at a lawyer’s office in Haripad. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, observed that the offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) carry a maximum punishment of seven years, necessitating the application of settled judicial principles governing bail.
The allegations pertain to an incident on November 25, 2024, wherein the accused allegedly trespassed into the complainant’s office, damaged property, and threw his files, coat, and name board outside the premises. The complainant also reported the theft of financial documents, leading to an estimated loss of ₹30,700. The accused were subsequently detained under Sections 331(4) (house trespass) and 305(a) (theft in a building) of the BNS.
The Court relied on the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014), which restricts arrests and custodial detention for offences punishable by imprisonment up to seven years, unless specific statutory conditions are satisfied. As reiterated in that case, “the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself: Why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose will it serve?” Justice Kunhikrishnan applied this ratio to the matter at hand and found custodial detention unwarranted, given that the accused had already been in custody since November 29, 2024.
The Court further underscored the well-established principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”—a tenet reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement, which cautioned courts against treating bail as punitive. Custodial detention, the Court reiterated, must not be used to inflict punishment before trial.
The intervention of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) was also noted. Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, representing KHCAA, argued that such acts of vandalism interfere with the administration of justice, as they target members of the Bar. While acknowledging the Association's submissions, Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked, “If the de facto complainant is occupying a room of the petitioners without any authority, their remedy lies before the civil court. The petitioners have no right to take the law into their own hands.”
The Court commended the KHCAA’s collective response, stating: “When there is a grievance to a lawyer, the lawyer community is coming together. This is to be appreciated.” However, in granting bail, Justice Kunhikrishnan imposed strict conditions to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the investigation and prevent any further misconduct. The conditions include execution of a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties, weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction or engaging in similar offences.
Case Title: Vijith & ors v State of Kerala & anr.
Case No: BAIL APPL. NO. 9990 OF 2024
Bench: Justice PV Kunhikrishnan
