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
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 Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
3. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties 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