Nikhil S. Kariel, J
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for learned advocate Mr.Aamir Pathan appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Mehul Mehta appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. The applicant has filed 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. 11192060250172/2025 registered with Viramgaam Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 3, 4, 5(L), 6, 8, 9(L), 10 of the POCSO Act.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. 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. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-
i. While the age of the prosecutrix being around 14 years 11 months and 22 days could not be ignored, at the same time, the age of the applicant herein being around 20 years could also not be overlooked.
ii. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix before the doctor at the stage of medical examination as well as the statement of the victim before the investigating officer, it would appear very clearly that the parties were having an affair more particularly the relation being consensual in nature.
iii. It would also appear that the parties had resided together for around 8-10 days allaying any allegation of there being threat, coercion or force involved in the relationship.
iv. The submission of learned advocate for the respondent no.3 that releasing the present applicant may result in law and order issues, could be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.
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. 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.
9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11192060250172/2025 registered with Viramgaam Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand 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] 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 residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;
[f] not to enter Taluka:Viramgam till the deposition of the prosecutrix in the trial is over.
[g] mark presence once a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station.
10. 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 Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
