Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Siddique vs State Of Kerala

Supreme Court19 November 2024Bela M. Trivedi

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

REPORTABLE

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