SANTHOSHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number, they have been taken together to dispose of them by a common order.

(2.) Petitioner in Cri. P. No. 907 of 2014 is accused 1 filed the petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking his release on bail and petitioners in Cri. P. No. 906 of 2014 are accused 2 and 3 filed the petition under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct respondent-police to release the said petitioners on bail in the event of arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in the respondent-police station Crime No.9 of 2014 and subsequently, the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also ' under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been inserted in the case.

(3.) The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments in the complaint are: that one Ravi lodged the complaint on 10-1-2014 soting that his daughter Rachana has been studying in 10th Standard at Survodaya School at Rajaanukunte and on 9-1-2014 his daughter went to the school and she did not return to home. On enquiry at the school, he learnt that his daughter did not attend the school, then the complainant suspecte.d that Sandeep might have kidnapped his daughter and in this regard complainant made the call to Sandeep over mobile vide No. 8123222902 and petitioner said that he has kidnapped the daughter of the complainant and he refused to bring back his daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly, the case was registered against accused 1-Sandeep for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366A of IPC, but, subsequently, by filing the remand application accused 2 and 3 were also included in the case and the alleged offence under Section 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act were added in the case.