SUMITHA PRADEEP versus ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 21-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
SUMITHA PRADEEP
v.
ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Anticipatory bail: Case filed against respondent no.1 under
ss.354(1)(i), (ii) and (iv), 354A(2) and 354A(3) IPC /w ss.7, 8, 9
and 11 of POCSO Act – Allegation against respondent no.1 was
that he sexually assaulted his 12 years old niece – He asked the
victim to sit on his lap and thereafter hugged her and kissed her on
the cheeks and tried to kiss her on her lips – He further attempted
to disrobe her and made lewd comments – The incident traumatized
the victim to an extent that she slumped down in her course and
performance although she was an excellent student giving good
performances – She was taken to counselling but did not open up –
In second counselling session, she disclosed the unfortunate incident
– Thereafter, FIR was registered against respondent no.1 –
Respondent no.1 approached Sessions Court but was declined the
anticipatory bail, however High Court granted protection of
anticipatory bail – Instant appeal by victim’s mother – Held: In a
case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not
to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against
arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free hand to take the
investigation to its logical conclusion – The fact that the victim was
traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits were
adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent
especially reflected through s.29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient
to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction
in granting pre-arrest bail – There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is
made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground
to grant anticipatory bail – Custodial interrogation can be one of
the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail – However, even
if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated by itself
cannot be ground to grant anticipatory bail – There may be many
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1012
1012
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1013
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not
be required, but that would not mean that prima facie case against
the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be
granted anticipatory bail – The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is
the prima facie case put up against the accused – Thereafter, the
nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity
of the punishment – In the facts of this case, High Court ought not
to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
Joy v. State of Kerala (2019) 1 KLT 935 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 1 KLT 935
referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1834 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 25.07.2022 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Appl. No. 5271 of 2022.
Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Arvind Gupta,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Raghenth Basant, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ajay Krishna, Harshad V.
Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the mother of the victim who is a 12 years old
girl child.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the Order dated 25-7-2022 passed
by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby Respondent No.1
has been granted protection of anticipatory bail in Crime No.442 of 2022
dated 27-5-2022 registered at Police Station Meenangadi District
Wayanad under Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv),  354 A-(2) and 354-A(3)
of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’).
The occurrence allegedly took place on 14-12-2021 when Respondent
SUMITHA PRADEEP v. ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
No.1 is alleged to have sexually assaulted his 12 years old niece. The
allegations are that Respondent No.1 asked the victim to sit on his lap
and thereafter he hugged her and kissed her on the cheeks and tried to
kiss her on her lips. He further attempted to disrobe the victim and made
lewd comments. The victim was an excell

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.