Siddique vs State Of Kerala
- Neutral2024 INSC 877
- SCR[2024] 11 SCR 822
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person accused of offences under sections 376 and 506 IPC applies for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the fact that the complaint was lodged substantially delayed in time (in this case, approximately eight years after the alleged incident), combined with the circumstance that the complainant had previously ventilated allegations on a social media platform rather than through available formal institutional channels (such as a constituted Justice Committee), constitutes relevant consideration warranting grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions such as deposit of passport and cooperation with the investigating officer.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2024 INSC 877 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4625 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.13463 of 2024)
SIDDIQUE ...APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 24.09.2024, passed by the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application No.7331
of 2024, rejecting the said application filed by the
appellant – accused seeking anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the
F.I.R. being Crime No.1192 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024
registered at Police Station Museum, District
Thiruvananthapuram City, for the offence under
Signature Not Verified Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA
3. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties Date: 2024.11.20 17:03:40 IST Reason:
at length.
1 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
senior counsels for the parties and perusing the
documents on record including the pleadings, we deem
it appropriate not to assign elaborate reasons,
particularly considering the sensitivity of the
case. However, considering the fact that the
complainant had lodged the complaint almost eight
years after the alleged incident, which had taken
place in 2016 and the fact that she had also posted
the post on facebook somewhere in 2018, making
allegations against about 14 people, including the
appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse,
as also the fact that she had not gone to the
Justice Hema Committee constituted by the High Court
of Kerala for ventilating her grievance, we are
inclined to accept the present appeal, subject to
certain conditions mentioned hereinafter.
5. In that view of the matter, it is directed that in
the event of arrest of appellant in connection with
the F.I.R. being Crime No.1192 of 2024 dated
27.08.2024 registered at Police Station Museum,
District Thiruvananthapuram City, for the offence
under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, he shall be released
on bail, subject to the conditions that may be
2 imposed by the Trial Court, including the condition
that the appellant shall deposit the passport before
the Trial Court and shall cooperate with the
Investigating Officer in carrying out the
investigation.
6. It is needless to say that any breach of the
conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court
for releasing him on bail, shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
7. Subject to the afore-stated, the present appeal
stands allowed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
......................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)
......................J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
19TH NOVEMBER, 2024.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free