High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-23Bail granted; bail application allowed with spe...

Aboobacker Siddique v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Kumbla Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-07-23
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. Bail is granted to the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for like amount, and subject to conditions: regular appearance before the Investigating Officer on alternate Saturdays; no inducement or tampering with witnesses; no commission of offences while on bail; surrender of passport; restricted entry into the victim’s taluk except for reporting to the Investigating Officer; and a provision for cancellation of bail on violation, with further modifications permissible under law. The observations are limited to the bail application and not an expression on merits.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; bail application allowed with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aboobacker Siddique

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.E. Sajal
• Ajas K.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail petition concerns a sole accused, Aboobacker Siddique, in Crime No. 249/2024 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod, charged with offences under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(j)(ii)(l) of the POCSO Act, allegedly committed in the night between 7-8 January 2024. The applicant, who was remanded on 27 May 2024, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC on grounds of innocence, lack of concrete material tying him to the crime, and the fact that investigation is now complete with the final report laid on 29 June 2024; he has no prior criminal antecedents, and detention for roughly two months is unwarranted. The State counters that the offences are heinous and there is a real possibility of intimidation of the victim or tampering with witnesses if released, though it concedes that the investigation is complete and there is no antecedent. The court, invoking the bail principles under Dataram Singh, and the Article 21 jurisprudence in Hussainara Khatoon and State of Kerala v. Raneef, notes that bail is largely the rule and detention is an exception. After balancing the rival submissions and the stage of trial, the court grants bail conditioned on bond and multiple undertakings, including appearance on Saturdays, non-interference with witnesses, passport surrender, and restricted proximity to the victim’s taluk, while keeping the meris of the case open for future consideration.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 376(2)(n) IPCSection 6 r/w Section 5(j)(ii)(l) of the POCSO ActArticle 21 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Right to life under Article 21 shall be protected; indefinite detention is contrary to constitutional guarantees.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and lack of evidentiary material linking him to the crime. It is argued there is a false implication on a misconception of facts; he has remained in custody for about two months while investigation is complete and a final report has been filed. The petitioner has no antecedents, and continued detention is unnecessary and punitive in nature, especially given the gravity of the accusations.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes grant of bail on the ground that the offences are heinous and there is a credible risk of intimidation of the victim and tampering with witnesses if released. It concedes completion of investigation and lack of antecedents, but submits that the gravity of charge and risk to witnesses justify denial or strict conditioning of bail.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	[(2018) 3 SCC 22]	Positive	Used to emphasize that bail is the rule and release on bail should be preferred unless strong reasons exist; the discretion must be judicious and compassionate.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	[(2011) 1 SCC 784]	Positive	Cited to highlight that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe Article 21 and justify bail in appropriate cases.
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	[(1980) 1 SCC 81]	Positive	Anchors the principle against long incarcerations without trial as inconsistent with Article 21.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Positive	Cited for bail guidelines and the powers of the Investigating Officer to continue action including recovery, reinforcing the conditional grant of bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aboobacker Siddique v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Kumbla Police Station and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.249/2024 OF Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.2024 IN CRMC NO.562 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD / I ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE PETITIONER/S:** **ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, AGED 21 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, MARAKKAD HOUSE, MUKARIKANDAM, EDNAD VILLAGE, PUTHIGE POST, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671321** **BY ADVS. P.E.SAJAL AJAS K.S.(K/2080/2021)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 676101** - **SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **-------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5110 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.249/2024 of the Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 6 r/w Section 5(j)(ii)(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, POCSO Act). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: in the intervening night of 07.01.2024 and 08.01.2024, the accused trespassed into the house of the victim and committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim and impregnated her. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 3 3. Heard; Sri.P.E.Sajal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The victim has falsely implicated the petitioner in the case on a misconception of fact. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly 2 months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner has committed a very heinous offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the victim and the witnesses and tampering BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 4 with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has been laid on 29.06.2024 and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner had trespassed into the house of the victim and committed rape on her and impregnated her. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly two months, the investigation in the case is complete, the medical examinations have been conducted and the final report has been laid on 29.06.2024, and the case has been now numbered as S.C.No.431/2024 on the file of the Special Court, Kasargod. 7. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 5 facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 6 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, the investigation in the case is complete, medical examinations have been conducted and the final report has been laid, and further that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 7 bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No. 249/2024. - ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to the victim or her witnesses or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 8 affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - v. The petitioner shall not enter the Taluk where the victim and the witnesses are residing till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.249/2024, other than for the purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer; - v. In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - vi. Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - vii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 9 viii. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- rkc/23.07.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 5110 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5110/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2024 IN CRL.MC. NO.562/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-I,KASARGOD**