SURI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER 1. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be an auto driver and plying a public transport vehicle, i.e., an auto in Chikkamagaluru Town. On the basis of the written complaint by the victim's mother, a case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC on 20.06.2020 at 5.00 p.m. as Crime No.35/2020. The statement of the victim is reproduced in the remand application which reads as follows: ...[OMMITED TO VARNACULAR TEXT]...

(3.) From reading the above extracted portion, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he has taken the victim girl in his Auto and dropped her at a temple at the instance of the first accused. There is no material on record to demonstrate that he has either induced or forced the victim girl to get into the vehicle or she was taken by this petitioner against her wishes. The petitioner is an Auto driver and plying a public transport. Mere fact that the victim travelled in his Auto, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, cannot constitute an offence or one which is so grievous in nature in order to deny him, release on bail.