JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in connection with Crime No.50 of 2020 on the file of Mandapeta Town Police Station, East Godavari District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (d) r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a student of B.Com final year in Vignan College, Mandapeta and she belongs to SC-Mala community. On 03.03.2020 the defacto complainant went to college for group photo and thereafter she returned to her native village Ippanapadu on the Scooty of one Brahmaji. When they reached by-pass road, the 1st petitioner and A-4 stopped the vehicle posing themselves as police and asked the documents of vehicle, Brahmaji informed them that there are no records for the vehicle. The 1st petitioner and A-4 asked them to come to the police station. Thereafter the said Brahmaji was alleged to have been taken away by A-4 and in the meantime, A-3 came there and the 1st petitioner asked the complainant to board the vehicle of A-3 to police station. The victim refused to do so and the 1st petitioner informed that she would be taken to Brahmaji and thereupon she boarded the vehicle of A-3 and the 1st petitioner followed her. 3. It is further alleged that 1st petitioner and A-3 took her to an isolated place and committed rape on her, in the meantime A-2 came there and also committed rape on the defacto complainant and beat her. The victim informed the same to her classmates, who accompanied to her house. On the next day i.e. 04.03.2020 she informed the incident to her relatives then her brother brought her to police station and lodged a complaint. 4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent / State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence, muchless the alleged offence and they are falsely implicated by the police. The petitioners were arrested on 05.03.2020 and since from more than 3 months they are in judicial custody. The entire investigation is completed and though the police have filed the charge sheet, it was returned. The petitioners were arrested on 05.03.2020 and since from more than 3 months they are in judicial custody. The entire investigation is completed and though the police have filed the charge sheet, it was returned. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled for mandatory bail and the applications were filed under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C for enlarging on bail, but the trial Court without application of mind dismissed the same. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners will abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that though the charge sheet is filed within 90 days, it was returned on certain technical reasons and they have complied with the objections as such Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C has no application to the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners have committed heinous crime and they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail as there is every likelihood of threatening the victim. 7. It appears from the record that the investigating officer in person has filed charge sheet on 28.05.2020 and the same was returned with an objection as to how the manual filing is maintainable without e-filing in view of the High Court's Circular in ROC.No.192/SO/2020 dated 17.05.2020. Later, the charge sheet is filed through e-filing on 03.06.2020 when the regular Presiding Officer is on vacation and the office note of Administrative Officer reveals that on 04.06.2020 charge sheet is returned due to lack of 164 Cr.P.C statements. But there is no order of incharge Presiding Officer in respect of return of charge sheet and so also no signature is obtained on the docket in respect of return. Unless the incharge officer order is obtained in respect of return of charge sheet, when the regular Presiding Officer is on vacation, the same is not returned and it is still pending consideration to consider for numbering or return as of now. It appears that the same is pending consideration. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the charge sheet is filed within 90 days from 05.03.2020. Hence the petitioners cannot take shelter under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C for enlargement of bail. Apart from the above, the defacto complainant sustained injuries on her private parts and there is every possibility that the petitioners may threaten the victim. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the charge sheet is filed within 90 days from 05.03.2020. Hence the petitioners cannot take shelter under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C for enlargement of bail. Apart from the above, the defacto complainant sustained injuries on her private parts and there is every possibility that the petitioners may threaten the victim. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioners. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.