Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Melwin S/O Anthon Rodgieus

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2021CRL.P/101259/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State's criminal petition filed under Cr.P.C. Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused. The Court held that bail should not be cancelled ordinarily unless the order is perverse or bail liberty was misused, noting no such evidence existed here.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition filed by the State for cancellation of bail is dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Melwin S/O… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101259 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE HONNAVAR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MELWIN S/O. ANTHON RODGIEUS AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS LORRY CLEANER RESIDING AT NEAR HOLLY CROSS CHURCH DODDAHITTALU, MANKI VILLAGE HONNAVAR TALUK.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

[BY: RESPONDENT IS SERVED (ABSENT)]

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SPECIAL S.C.(POCSO) NO.86 OF 2019 DATED 27-1-2020 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 323 AND 506 OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF THE POCSO ACT AND DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE AUTHORITIES TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED AND COMMIT HIM TO CUSTODY.

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Special Case No.86 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

¶19

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution before the Special Court is that on the complaint of victim’s father, the Police registered a case for the aforesaid offences. The accused abducted a minor girl, in the meaning of child, and later, after apprehension of the accused, the case was converted into kidnapping and rape.

¶21

¶22

After interrogation, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The accused approached the Special Court for grant of bail by filing a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and the Special Court, after considering the objections raised by the Public Prosecutor, granted bail by imposing certain conditions vide order dated 27-1-2020.

¶23

Now, the State has preferred this petition for cancellation of bail contending that the order of the Special Court is contrary to the law, facts and documents on record. The age of the victim is 17 years and the offences are under POCSO Act as well under the IPC. The Special Court has not considered the provisions of POCSO Act properly. The statements made by the victim and the mother of the victim corroborate with each other. The Special Court erred in granting bail and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶24

Though the notice is served on the respondent-accused, he is absent.

¶25

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader, it is not in dispute that the accused was facing trial under the POCSO Act as well under the IPC. The alleged offences are committed on 24-9-2019. It is revealed from the record that the age of the victim is 17+ years and the Special Court stated in the order that the victim has already attained the age of majority in the year 2018 itself and the age of the victim is more than seventeen years and due to love affairs, they eloped and as per the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the victim has given birth to a child. Considering all these aspects, the Special Court granted bail to the accused. There is no complaint against the accused that he has committed similar offence, or violated any of the bail conditions, or he has misused the liberty of bail.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS in CRIMINAL

¶28

MISC. NO.45090 OF 2017 decided on 3-8-2018 has held that once the bail is granted to the accused, the Court shall not

¶29

¶30

ordinarily cancel the bail, until the order is perversed, or the accused has misused the liberty of bail. In the present case, there is no such complaint available against the respondentaccused that he has misused the liberty of bail. Hence, the petition filed by the State is liable to the dismissed.

¶31

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed .

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

kvk

The State of Karnataka v. Melwin S/O Anthon Rodgieus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Melwin S/O Anthon Rodgieus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhydhar Yoga Kurne Vs Kempanna Kallappa Yadgude

Muttanna S/O. Basanna Vs State of Karnataka

Shivayogi S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Sudir Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Shri.Muttappa @ Muttu @ Mutturaj

Shri. Girimalla Vs the State of Karnataka