Kerala HC grants bail to advocate clerk accused of interrupting family court proceedings, verbally abusing police officer in court
Litigation News

Kerala HC grants bail to advocate clerk accused of interrupting family court proceedings, verbally abusing police officer in court

The Kerala High Court allowed the bail plea of an advocate clerk who allegedly entered a Family Court whilst proceedings were in progress and used “filthy language” against a constable who accosted him thereafter.

Lydia Suzanne Thomas

The Kerala High Court yesterday allowed the bail plea of an advocate clerk who had allegedly entered a Kottayam Family Court whilst proceedings were in progress and used “filthy language” against a constable who accosted him (Aneesh B. Kumar v. State of Kerala and Anr).

While allowing the bail plea, the Court, however, observed,

“The behaviour of the petitioner, who is a registered Advocate Clerk cannot be appreciated”.
Kerala High Court

The accused advocate clerk is stated to have entered the courtroom and gesticulated to catch the attention of one of the lawyers leading the Presiding Officer to halt the proceedings and stare at the clerk.

According to the prosecution case, after the clerk left the courtroom, a police constable questioned him about his interruption of proceedings prompting the clerk to use "filthy language."

Thereafter, the presiding officer filed a complaint against the clerk with the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, which was forwarded to the Ettumanoor Police Station.

The Court noted that the Police have charged the clerk with the offence of assault/using criminal force to impede a public servant from discharging her duty, making sexually coloured remarks and, uttering words that insult the modesty of a woman in her presence (Sections 353, 354A (1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code)

Submitting that the statements were made in the spur of the moment, the bail applicant’s/ clerk's counsel averred that the clerk regretted his choice of words. Further, the counsel sought to impress upon the Court that the non-bailable offence under Section 353, IPC was not made out.

While dealing with the plea, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, sharply rebuked the applicant, observing,

“... the action of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The petitioner claims that he is a registered Advocate Clerk and working in the courts at Ettumanoor. He should know how to behave in a court. A reading of the complaint made by the Family Court Judge, Ettumanoor will show the way the petitioner behaved in a court hall. It cannot be accepted from an Advocate Clerk who is a part of the system.”
Kerala High Court

The Court, however, proceeded to observe that the bail application would have to be considered “in the legal manner.

In this view, Justice Kunhikrishnan held that the applicant’s act would, prima facie, not constitute an offence under Section 353, IPC.

Stating that the prerequisites of “assault” and “criminal force” under Section 353, IPC did not seem to be present in the clerk's act, the Court allowed the clerk bail on his execution of a bond for Rs 50,000 with sureties.

The Judge added that the investigating officer was free to proceed against the clerk later if an offence under Section 353, IPC is made out subsequently following the investigation.

Justice Kunhikrishnan also restrained the clerk from entering any court hall in Kottayam until the trial of the charges against him was complete. Only for the purposes of his trial would he be permitted to enter the court, the the judge said.

Read the Bail Order here:

Aneesh B. Kumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. - Bail Order dated July 8, 2020.pdf
Preview
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com