[2024] 11 S.C.R. 822 : 2024 INSC 877
Siddique
v.
State of Kerala & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4625 of 2024)
19 November 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the
appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory
bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Complainant lodged the complaint almost after eight years
the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further,
though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making
allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with
regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the
Justice Hema Committee constituted by the High Court of Kerala for
ventilating her grievance – Appellant granted anticipatory bail – To
be released on bail, if arrested, subject to the conditions imposed
by the Trial Court, if any. [Paras 4, 5]
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Anticipatory bail; Conditions imposed; Complaint lodged after eight
years; Post on facebook; Alleged sexual abuse; Sensitive case/
sensitivity of the case.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
4625 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2024 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in BA No. 7331 of 2024
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
823
Siddique v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Appearances for Parties
Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ranjeeta
Rohatgi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Renjith Kumar, Sr. Adv., Nishad L.S.,
Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Vrinda Grover,
Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Aakarsh Kamra, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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.
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
824
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Thiruvananthapuram City, for the offence under Sections 376 and
506 IPC, he shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions
that may be 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.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Lex