NAGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the learned HCGP for respondent- State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 18/9/2018 at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant was going to school near Kore Gallli, accused No.1 forcibly took the complainant in his bike and taken her to Bhagya Nagar to his Aunt's house and changed the complainant's uniform and after changing the cloths, both of them went to Vaijanath temple, Belagavi city, Khanapur, Macche, Asoga, Yallur, Nandihalli, Jhadshahhapur, Santibastwad, Waghwade till 20/9/2018 and in the night at 9.00p.m., accused No.1 dropped her to Tarihal village with accused No.2. Accused No.2 on 20/9/2018 took the complainant in his Activa Scooter and they gone beside the Marihal police station, wherein accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein committed rape on the victim at about 3.30a.m. on 21/9/2018. This petitioner along with his friend Rakesh took the victim girl to the house of one Madhuri Nevagiri, who is a social worker at 8.15 p.m. and narrated the facts to the parents. The complainant and her parents met another social worker by name Pramod Hajare and thereafter, complaint is lodged. Based on the complaint, Crime No.150/2018 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner is that he is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and there is a delay in lodging the complaint and contents of the allegation made in the complaint are false and concocted and falsely implicated this petitioner. The other contention that this petitioner has filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court and even though the Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that the charge sheet has been filed after lapse of 90 days not assigned any reason and erroneously rejected the application. Petitioner's counsel also contends that charge sheet material reveals that same was filed on 18/1/2019 during the pendency of the bail petition filed invoking Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and no dispute that he was arrested on 10/10/2018 and charge sheet was filed on 18/1/2019 after lapse of 90 days. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail and the same has not been considered by the Sessions Court. Hence, this petitioner is entitled for bail.