Supreme Court of India

SIDDIQUEversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 INSC 877
Decided: 19 November 2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: BELA M TRIVEDISATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant, subject to conditions, due to the significant delay in the complaint and the complainant's failure to approach the designated grievance committee.

Summary

The appellant, Siddique, was charged under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC for alleged sexual abuse, with the FIR filed in August 2024. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the Kerala High Court rejected. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the complainant filed the complaint nearly eight years after the alleged incident and had previously made allegations on Facebook in 2018 without approaching the Justice Hema Committee. Considering the delay and the complainant's inaction, the Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, including passport surrender and cooperation with investigators. The appeal was allowed, directing that the appellant be released on bail if arrested, with breach of conditions leading to cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC given the delayed filing of the complaint and related circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376, s. 506

Headnote

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: 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

Subjects

Anticipatory bailConditions imposedComplaint lodged after eight yearsPost on facebookAlleged sexual abuseSensitive case/sensitivity of the case

Judgment

          [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

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Anticipatory bail"Sign in to search