Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1413
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
FR. Rees Vadassery - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14507 of 2024)
Decided on : 08-01-2025
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354(A)(i), 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7, 8, 9(p), 10, 11(iv), 12 - Anticipatory bail - Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail application - Allegations made were of a serious nature; however, no merit was found for rejecting anticipatory bail considering unexplained delay in FIR - Relief granted by the Court with conditions. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Appeal - Nature and scope - The court, in considering the appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail, evaluates the circumstances and merits of the allegations in relation to the delay in lodging the FIR. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant faced serious allegations under IPC and POCSO Act regarding his conduct occurring in June 2023, with the FIR lodged in August 2024. He sought anticipatory bail which was rejected by the High Court, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail, and the High Court's order was set aside; conditions were imposed for bail concerning cooperation in the investigation and ensuring no interference with witnesses.
Issues: The primary issues include the alleged delay in FIR at lodgement and the justification for the charges against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while the allegations against the appellant were serious, the unexplained delay in FIR registration warranted the granting of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for justice over mere allegations.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion and final order of the court (Para 2 , 12) |
| 2. factual basis of the appeal concerning anticipatory bail (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's assessment of merits for granting bail (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. arguments surrounding delay and seriousness of the charges (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. conditions and directions related to bail (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Bail Appl. No. 7462/2024.
3. Apprehending arrest in connection with the crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 939 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024 lodged with Mala Police Station, Thrissur Rural District in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354(A)(i) and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 7 , 8, 9(p), 10, 11(iv) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("B.N.S.S." for short).
4. Said application for anticipatory bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 04.10.2024, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Vide order dated 24.10.2024, while issuing notice, this Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellant till next date of hearing.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-state.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR in respect of the incident said to have been occurred as early as in the second week of June, 2023. He further submitted that the appellant is a Priest in a Church and the allegations against him are wholly incorrect. In the circumstances, the impugned order(s) may be set aside and relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the appellant herein.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State with reference to his Counter Affidavit contended that there is no such delay in lodging the FIR which in any case has been explained; that the charges against the appellant herein are serious and hence there is no merit in the appeal.
9. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.
10. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 04.10.2024. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties.
11. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal appeal is allowed.
