VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. Fabian Redden, Crime No. 459/ 2006 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 393 of IPC against the petitioner and two other accused. The police after investigation have laid the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 367 of IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that while the complainant was driving his Scorpio car from Yelahanka towards Bangalore at 8. 30 p. m. on 6-12-2006, the petitioner and another followed his car on a motor cycle up to Hebbal ring Road. In the said car, Kumari Kanmani kavi was travelling with the complainant. Though the complainant avoided the accused and proceeded towards Hebbal, the accused began chasing the car of the complainant. However, to avoid the crowded traffic near hebbal fly-over, the complainant took the car towards left side of fly-over i. e. . towards the ring road. Ultimately the car driven by the complainant had to stop because of traffic signal. Then the two accused parked their motor cycle in front of Scorpio car and started banging both the front door glasses. The complainant got down from Scorpio, immediately, petitioner herein, who was one of those two miscreants, got into Scorpio car and drove away the car along with Kumari Kanmani Kavi. The complainant's laptop, mobile phone, etc. , were in the car. The petitioner did not allow kanmani Kavi to get down from the car and threatened her with dire consequences by holding her hands and by showing knife. Thereafter the mobile phone of Kanmani Kavi was snatched by the petitioner and he called his friends over phone to come near the car as he has brought the girl. He tried to outrage her modesty and told her that in case if she does not satisfy his lust, he would get 10 boys to commit rape on her. Ultimately, when the car fell in a small ditch. Kanmani Kavi escaped from the car at about 9. 45 p. m. During the course of investigation, the police have seized Scorpio car, mobile phones, laptop, etc. robbed by the accused. At the first instance, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a bail petition on merits and same came to be dismissed. This is the second petition for bail and the same is filed for taking benefit under Section 167 (2) of Cr. P. C. by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge-sheet is filed on 83rd day and that the imprisonment prescribed for the offences under Sections 397 and 367 of IPC may extend to 10 years. Thus, the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of arrest/remand. He relies upon the judgments of the Apex court in the case of Rajeev Choudhary v. State (N. C. T.) of Delhi, reported in 2001 (4)Supreme 8 : (AIR 2001 SC 2369) and in the case of Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 138 : (2006 (5) AIR Kar r 240), in support of his contention. He further submits that the offence has not taken place on highway.