Kerala HC Entertains Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Taking Non-Acceptance Of Vakalath By Any Lawyer Before Sessions Court As Exceptional Circumstance
The Kerala High Court recently entertained an anticipatory bail plea preferred by a lawyer, who had not first approached the Sessions Court, since no lawyer practicing therein was willing to accept his vakalath.
Justice K. Babu was considering a pre-arrest bail application of a lawyer practicing in Palakkad.
He is accused of the offences under Sections 78 [Stalking] and 79 [Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 119(a) and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 [Punishment for atrocities against women].
A crime was registered against him in Palakkad alleging that he boarded the same private bus as the defacto complainant, a lady lawyer, and tried to take her photographs. It is further alleged that when she tried to question him, he made sexually coloured remarks and thereby, committed the above offences.
Recently, an observation was made by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala (2025), issuing notice to the Kerala High Court for "bypassing" the Sessions Court while considering anticipatory bail applications.
The Apex Court had remarked that though concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court, the hierarchy of Court demands that no person seeking remedy under Section 482 of BNSS should be encouraged to directly approach the High Court except in exceptional circumstances.
Following this, the High Court has been refraining from entertaining anticipatory bail pleas that are preferred without first approaching the Sessions Court.
According to the petitioner, since the victim was a lawyer practicing in the same bar, none of the lawyers were accepting his vakalath. Hence, he had made out a case that this was an exceptional circumstance, which made him approach the High Court without moving an application before the Sessions Court.
Though the matter was considered, the Court felt that there were serious allegations are made out against him and he was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. It observed:
"I have gone through the Case Diary, which reveals that the petitioner demanded sexual favours from the defacto complainant and also made sexually coloured remarks. The offences alleged are grave in nature. The petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of BNSS."
Thus, it dismissed the bail plea.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 12074 of 2025
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 832
Counsel for the petitioner: P.V. Uttara, Shilpa Soman
Counsel for the respondents: Swetha R., M.C. Ashi - Senior Public Prosecutor