RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was taken into custody, on 28.9.2006 or 29.9.2006, as the case may be, for the alleged offence, said to have been committed by him, under Sections 376 and 366 IPC., in Crime No. 28 of 2006, on the file of the respondent police, thereby he seeks bail, which is opposed.

(2.) It seems, the petitioner had some love affairs with the victim girl, who is aged about 14, and by kidnapping her, it is the case of the prosecution, the petitioner intended to perform marriage. But, as represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apprehending problem, in the hands of the parents, both of them went to the Police Station, on 26.9.2006, who informed the parents, then on coming to the Police Station, the parents of the girl, has given a complaint.

(3.) Be that as it may. Though the accused was taken into custody, on 29.9.2006, despite the fact more than 60 days have lapsed, admittedly, police has not filed the final report, and in this view, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail, as contemplated under Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. But, the learned Government Advocate would submit that Section 376 IPC carries life also, and therefore, the respondent police entitled to 90 days, which appears to be incorrect, since it is not the case of the prosecution before me, that the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner would come under Section 376(2) IPC, which alone will carry the maximum imprisonment of life, in addition to other grounds, which are not available, and therefore, if at all the petitioner would come, if any offence had been committed by him, only under Section 376(1) IPC, which says the maximum punishment is 10 years. In this view final report ought to have been filed within 60 days, which was not done, admittedly, and therefore, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, since the petitioner offers to go on bail, by furnishing security also.