IJAZKHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who has been arraigned as sole accused in Crime No. 153 of 2015 by Dharwad Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court seeking for grant of bail. It is the case of prosecution that a complaint came to be lodged by one Sri. Mohammad Rafiq Makandar on 28th November 2015 alleging that, on 27th November 2015 at about 3.00 p.m., complainant had gone outside the shop and had left his daughter alone and by the time he returned, she was not seen in the shop and on enquiring with the workers, they had informed him that his daughter was talking to accused, who had come in an auto rikshaw. Hence, alleging that petitioner had kidnapped his daughter with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her, complaint came to be lodged. It is further stated that complaint was not lodged immediately, since they were searching for her and to find whereabouts of his daughter and as such, on the next day i.e., on 28th November 2015, complaint had been lodged. On the basis of said complaint lodged, investigation has been taken up and accused was apprehended along with the victim at 9.00 p.m. on 05th December 2015 and on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner. Seeking for being enlarged on bail, petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. T.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -- State and perused the material on record.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri. T.R. Patil learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that there is delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained with cogent reasons; the statement of the victim recorded on 05th December 2015 and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 09th December 2015 are at variance and there is delay of four days in recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which runs into eight pages, whereas the statement recorded before the investigating officer is only two pages and this would clearly indicate that it is clear case of improvisation. He would also submit that victim girl has stated before the doctor, who examined her prior to the alleged incident i.e., even 15 to 20 days back itself, the accused had sexual intercourse with her at his house when she went to give him money. She has also stated that she was engaged three years back which are inconsistent with one another. As such, he prays for petitioner being enlarged on bail.