Kerala High Court
Jumli Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.7838 of 2025 1
2025:KER:49880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7838 OF 2025
CRIME NO.784/2021 OF Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.42 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHAVAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
JUMLI JABBAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O ABDULJABBAR,
KUNNATH VALAPPIL JAZ VILLA, PUNNAYUR,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR KERALA, PIN - 679562
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.A.HARIS
SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
SMT.AAGI JOHNY
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SMT. SREEJA V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7838 of 2025 2
2025:KER:49880
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.7838 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.784 of 2021 of
Guruvayur Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 506(ii), 376(2)(I)(n), 376(D) r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused 1 and 2 had
committed rape on the victim during the period from 27.06.2019
till November, 2020 and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard Adv.E.A.Haris, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the prosecution allegations are false and that petitioner has been
falsely arrayed as an accused and, therefore, he may be granted
anticipatory bail.
2025:KER:49880
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that custodial interrogation is
necessary.
7. Since petitioner was absconding, he was not arrested
during the crime stage and a final report was filed. Subsequently
the 1st accused was tried in S.C.No.748 of 2022 of the Fast Track
Special Court, Chavakkad, and by judgment dated 29.02.2024 he
was acquitted. In the order of acquittal the Special Court observed
that the evidence given by PW1 is full of contradictions and
discrepancies and PW1-the prosecutrix is untrustworthy. PW1 had
raised allegations against the petitioner in the same complaint
itself.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
apart from the allegations being false, the de facto complainant
herself had settled the matter and she is not interested to pursue
the case any further. It was further submitted that petitioner is
willing to face trial, however, in the meantime, despite the
acquittal of the co-accused, if the petitioner is arrested, it will
cause prejudice to him.
2025:KER:49880
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant
to the direction of this Court, the statement of the victim was
taken and she stated that she has filed an affidavit and she stands
by the contents of the affidavit and that she is also not interested
in pursuing the matter any further.
10. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Another, 2020 (5) SCC 1, it was held that while
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought
to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and
gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and
the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of
discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be
imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to
the discretion of the court.
11. Since the 1st accused in the aforesaid crime has
already been acquitted and since there are observations in the
judgment in tune with the contentions of the petitioner, I am of the
view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
However, he must subject himself to interrogation.
2025:KER:49880
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 15.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be
released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or
contact the victim.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while
he is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission
of the Court having jurisdiction.
2025:KER:49880
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/08/07/2025
2025:KER:49880
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7838/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
18.01.2022 IN CRIME NO. 784 OF 2021 OF
GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
29.02.2024 IN S.C.NO.748/2022 ON THE
FILES OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
CHAVAKKAD
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE FLIGHT
TICKET BOOKED BY THE PETITIONER
