LUCKY @ ARUNKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's counsel and HCGP for the respondent-State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant who is aged about 15 years 11 months has lodged the complaint alleging that on 24.12.2017, she was in her house since same is Sunday and her parents went to Coolie, at that time, two persons came in a Car bearing No.AP-10/AH-9899 and told that they came with household articles for sale and also they told that card value is Rs.50/- and took mobile number and called within one hour and again called on 29.12.2017 in the early morning and came in a car and took her in a car to Srinivasa Lodge, Hospete and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her and dropped her on the same day at 9.30 p.m. and she informed the same to her parents. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.2/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 (for short, 'the Act').

(3.) The petitioner who is accused No.1 has contended that there is delay of 15 days in lodging the complaint and there are no direct and indirect materials placed by the prosecution to connect the petitioner in the commission of the offences as alleged against him. He further contended that the medical examination report says that she is aged about 17 to 18 years and there is no legal impediment to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Medical report says that no external injuries and internal injuries. The petitioner also invoking Sections 35(1) and (2) of the Act contends that though the cognizance was taken, within 30 days the evidence of the victim has not been recorded and further proviso says that the trial has to be completed within one year from the date of taking cognizance, hence, the Special Judge not complied with the provisions of Section 35(1) and (2) of the Act and on that ground also, the petitioner is entitled for bail, in view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vinay Vs. State of Karnataka reported in KCCR 2017 4 3159 passed in Crl.P. No.1195/2017. The petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.