ORDER : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 9 in Crime No. 369/2025 of Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, 296(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’). 3. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant, who is a lawyer, was travelling on his motorcycle on 29.04.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., when the accused restrained him and brutally assaulted him and thereby committed the offences alleged. 4. I have heard Sri. Dipu James, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. A. Shajith, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as Sri. Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and no such incident as alleged had occurred. It was also submitted that the document produced as Annexure R2(b) is a concocted document, as the date of discharge mentioned in the said document is not correct. It was also submitted that petitioner had never assaulted the defacto complainant nor had he suffered any injury and therefore custodial interrogation is not necessary. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are serious and the petitioner has suffered a chest trauma with fracture as well as fracture of the vertebrae, and therefore grievous injuries has been occasioned by use of dangerous weapons and hence, custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is a lawyer whose only mistake was to draft Annexure R3(a) complaint against the petitioners, who are political leaders. It was also submitted that due to the said enmity for having carried out his professional duty, the accused assaulted him, and he suffered two fractures; one on the rib and the other on the vertebrae, and therefore custodial interrogation is necessary, especially to recover the weapon of offence. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. Petitioners are stated to be political leaders who are alleged to have assaulted a practicing lawyer. The prosecution case itself is that the defacto complainant had drafted a complaint against the petitioners on behalf of his client. The complaint drafted by the defacto complainant is produced as Annexure R3(a). 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. Petitioners are stated to be political leaders who are alleged to have assaulted a practicing lawyer. The prosecution case itself is that the defacto complainant had drafted a complaint against the petitioners on behalf of his client. The complaint drafted by the defacto complainant is produced as Annexure R3(a). It is evident from a reading of the said complaint that the first petitioner is the first opposite party in the said complaint. The said circumstance indicates a motive for the alleged assault on the defacto complainant. 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. 10. In a recent decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 LiveLaw SC 598) the Supreme Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that 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 fact, the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. 11. Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly. The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through Advocates. If Advocates are attacked for drafting complaints rule of law will suffer. The attack in the instant case appears to be brutal in the light of Annexure R2(b). The contention that the said document is a concocted document is not supported by any material. The weapon of offence has also to be recovered. 12. 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. Hence, this bail application is dismissed.