Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1578
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
K R Jayachandran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 2025 (@ SLP (Criminal) No. 1092 of 2025)
Decided on : 27-03-2025
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n), 376AB - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 5(p) read with Section 6 - Anticipatory bail application - Appeal against High Court's rejection of bail on serious allegations concerning a minor - Court highlights the need for careful consideration of allegations in light of the appellant's cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 2-6, 8-17)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting anticipatory bail - The court emphasizes cooperation with investigation and stipulations regarding bail and conditions to avoid misuse of the liberty. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 55, was apprehending arrest for serious allegations of sexual offences against his sister-in-law’s mother-in-law regarding a minor child, which he contended were false and driven by custody disputes. The application for anticipatory bail was initially denied by the High Court on the basis of ongoing investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted anticipatory bail on conditions including cash security and cooperation in investigation.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of allegations against the appellant and the appropriateness of bail in the context of serious charges and ongoing investigations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail given his cooperation with the investigation and the nature of the allegations, underscoring the principle of not misusing liberty once granted.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to bail application process (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims of false allegations and family dispute (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. state's opposition due to serious allegations (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. interim protection and cooperation requirement (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. granting anticipatory bail under conditions (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final order to allow the appeal (Para 20) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application No.5932 of 2024.
3. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.475/2024 dated 08.06.2024 registered at Police Station - Kozhikode Kasaba, District - Kozhikode City for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 5 (l), 5(m), 5(n), and 5(p) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (" BNSS " for short).
4. Said application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 14.01.2025. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. By order dated 27.01.2025, this Court issued the following order:
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 28.02.2025.
Petitioner's counsel is permitted to serve the standing counsel for first respondent-State.
Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner herein vis-a-vis FIR No.475/2024 dated 08.06.2024 registered at Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode City provided the aforesaid interim order is subject to the petitioner cooperating with the investigation."
6. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the first respondent-State and learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aged 55 years who has been married for over twenty years and has no issues. The allegations made against the appellant is by his sister-in-law's mother-in-law which are frivolous and vexatious.
8. The purport of the allegation is only to gain the custody of the minor child as the complainant has an ongoing dispute with her daughter-in-law, the mother of the minor child for seeking custody of the minor child.
9. He further submitted that the mother of the minor child had not supported the version of the child at all. However, subsequently she has supported the version of the minor child. This is because the mother of the minor child and her mother-in-law, the complainant herein have now got together and the dispute with regard to the residence of the mother of the minor child in her husband's house may have sorted out. He contended that the allegations as against the appellant herein being false and vexatious ought to be quashed. However, the appellant herein who has supported the mother of the child as well as the child during their desperate days has now to face this complaint which is nothing but a harassment caused to him as it is a false case.
10. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that impugned order may be set aside and the relief of anticipatory bail may be granted subject to the terms to be imposed by this Court.
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for first respondent-State supported the impugned order and contended that the appellant had absconded and therefore, the investigation is inconclusive; that this is a serious case where the child of only four years has made serious allegations as against the appellant herein, it requires custodial interrogation and therefore, there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.
12. The second respondent-complainant (paternal grandmother of the child) also supported the stand of the State and contended that the High Court was justified in declining the grant of anticipatory bail
