Petitioner challanged dismissal of earlier bail order in Spl.SC.POCSO, alleging ill health caused absence that hampered trial; court dismissed bail petition due to continued violations and delay.
Bail petition rejected; accused remains in judicial custody pending disposal of trial court proceedings.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17773 CRL.P No. 103257 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 103257 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O KALAKAPPA MARAD AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: FARMER R/O GEDAGERI VILLAGE TAL. YELBURGA DISTTICT KOPPAL – 583 231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANT TO BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN SPL.SC
POCSO No. 39/2022 CONNECTION WITH CR.No. 98/2022 YELBURGA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 AND 376 OF IPC, 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, AT KOPPAL AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
seeking grant of bail in Spl.SC.POCSO No.39/2022 arising out of Crime No.98/2022 of Yelburga Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) , pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17773 CRL.P No. 103257 of 2024
“(i) The petitioner / accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner / accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner / accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.”
Court submitted that he has no intimation or instructions from the petitioner – accused for his absence. Father of the victim girl who was present before the Trial Court has submitted that again the petitioner – accused has kidnapped the victim girl. The N.B.W issued against the petitioner – accused could not be executed as he has not been traced by the police. On 06.12.2023, the petitioner – accused has voluntarily appeared through the counsel and filed application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’), seeking recall of the N.B.W on the ground that due to ill-health of his mother, he could nor appear before the Court. The said application came to be rejected and he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he filed application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the Special Court by Order dated 20.07.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
for the respondent – State would contend that the petitioner – accused has violated the bail conditions imposed by this Court. The charge against the petitioner - accused is also for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, apart from IPC offences. He further submits that there is a time limit for disposal of the cases
registered under the POCSO Act and as the petitioner – accused has remained absent, it has hampered progress of the case and trial. On these grounds, she prayed for rejection of the petition.
granted bail, there are chances of he remaining absent and hampering the trial again. As the trial has already commenced, it may be concluded in a short span of time. Therefore, there are no grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The petition is dismissed .
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
GH List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petitioner is entitled to be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given his violation of bail conditions and absence.
Whether the petitioner can be held liable for hampending the trial of a POCSO case due to voluntary absence.
Manjunath
The State of Karnataka
Shanthalingappa
Shivashankar Amarannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
