Nikhil S. Kariel, J
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Ruchi Singh on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Maheta for the respondent-State and learned Advocate MR. Kartikey Rawal on behalf of respondent no. 2.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210064241110 of 2024 registered with Gadodara Police Station, District: Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(2)(J), 376(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 3(A), 4, 7, 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 after filing of the charge-sheet.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. It is further submitted that the applicant is behind bar since 24.04.2025. It is submitted that considering the age of the present applicant, this Court may release the applicant on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. The present application is vehemently objected to by learned Additional Public Prosecutor by submitting that looking to the nature of offence, role attributed to the present applicant and since the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court may not interfere at this stage
6. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.
7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
8. This Court has also considered the following aspects:
(i) While the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged offence that is 15 year 8 months, on the other hand, the age of the applicant around 24 years at the time of the offence could not be ignored.
(ii) It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix had eloped and had gone to the native place of the applicant in the State of Bihar and whereas they had lived there for approximately 10 months.
(iii) While it is clear that the prosecutrix was a minor but the fact of the prosecutrix living with the applicant all the while, clearly points out the fact that the parties were in a relationships albeit, the consent of the prosecutirx may not amount to anything yet, the fact of relationship could not be ignored.
(iv) The fact of the applicant in custody since 24.04.2025 and the charge-sheet having been filed.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
10. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210064241110 of 2024 registered with Gadodara Police Station, District: Surat on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] Mark his presence at the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months and attend the trial regularly.
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residential address without prior intimation to the I.O.
11. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
12. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
13. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.
14. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
