FAYAZ RAJAK KARAJAGI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC, under Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 26/2015.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case that Kumari Renuka D/o Basavaraj Banasode, lodged the complaint mentioning that she is resident of Hidkal Dam Village, residing there with her family members. It is mentioned that about two months prior to the alleged incident, she went to pan shop to get currency to her father mobile and in the said shop she gave her mobile number in a chit in the hands of pan shop owner and after getting currency, she threw the mobile number chit in front of pan shop. At that time one person taken the chit and he used to call occasionally and enquired about the complainant's family and the house situated in which area, etc. Complainant also gave her detail history in phone and she also enquired the name of the person, who chitchatting with her and he told that his name is Riyaz. Such being the fact on 27.01.2015 the complainant went to market to bring Pooja items and after purchasing the same she was on her way to go to her house, at that time it was 7.30 p.m. At that time, a person came on his motor cycle and told her that he is the person, who is chitchatting with her in mobile and so saying he asked her to sit on his motor cycle, when the complainant denied, he forced her to sit on his motorcycle. Thereafter, he took the complainant to various places and lastly on Godachinmalaki Paschapur road, he removed her parity and first he inserted his finger in her private part and then forcibly made intercourse on her and left her near Tummarguddi village. The complainant went to the house of her friend at Tummarguddi, and later they informed the same to her father and the relatives and other came there and shifted the complainant to their village. On that day complainant did not disclose anything about her previous day story and she was kept mum and later, on 31.01.2015 she disclosed the same to her parents and others. Thereafter, complaint was filed on the basis of which, case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the complaint averments it shows that complaint was against another person and not against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even the identity of the petitioner was also not established by the prosecution. He also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and according to the averments in the complaint, even though she went to her house, she did not disclose the previous day story before her parents, hence, the complaint is after thought and it is after due deliberations between the family members and others. He has further submitted that perusing the entire materials on record, it shows that the age of the complainant is 18 years as per the medical evidence, but age is shown as 15 years as deposed before the JMFC Court. As the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has also been filed in the case, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.