State petition sought cancellation of bail granted to accused in a POCSO case. Court rejected cancellation, noting absence of tampering allegations, completed investigation, and six-month trial timeline requirements, dismissing the bail cancellation petition.
The petition by the State for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100842 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, GOKARANA POLICE STATION, TQ. KUMATA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. ……..PETITIONER (BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP) AND: MR.RAVICHANDRA MANJUNATH HALLER, AGE : 24 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE WORK, R/O. ENNEMADI, HIREGUTTI, TQ : KUMTA, DIST : UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 70 OF 2018 DATED 03.12.2018 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND CANCEL THE BAIL AND DIRECT THE
2
CONCERNED POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND COMMIT HIM TO CUSTODY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF THE POCSO ACT, AND SECTIONS 376 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the State for setting aside
the order dated 03.12.2018 in Special Case No.70 of 2018 passed by the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-State.
3
learned Special Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted the regular bail subject to the certain terms and conditions.
4
(i) A nature and severity of punishment in
the case of conviction ;
(ii) The reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or witnesses ;
(iii) The reasonable possibilities of securing the presence of accused ;
(iv) The larger interest of public or the State.
the year 2018. The time limit prescribed for conclusion
5
of trial in POCSO case is six months, as such, the trial must have been concluded and the matter would have been disposed of. Under these circumstances, there are no valid grounds for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, I
pass the following :
ORDER
Bail petition is dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
Ckk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail granted in a POCSO case should be cancelled after investigation completion due to non-availability of DNA report.
Whether the time limit for conclusion of trial in POCSO cases provides valid grounds for rejecting the State's bail cancellation petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahendra Chawla vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶29
Mahendra Chawla's case
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Karnataka
Mr. Ravichandra Manjunath Haller
Ashok G. Nijaganavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
