HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
GANESH BAMBAHADUR NEPALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2326 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant, a resident of Nepal, charged with serious offences involving a minor, seeks bail based on the nature of the offence and his role - The court noted that the prosecutrix had eloped with the applicant and established relations with consent, being 17 years old at the time (Paras 4, 6).
(B) Bail considerations - The court emphasized the need to evaluate the prima facie case, the likelihood of the applicant fleeing, and the risk of tampering with witnesses, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
The applicant, married at the time of the incident, was accused of establishing physical relations with a minor, who allegedly consented to elope with him.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to grant bail, emphasizing the applicant's custody duration and lack of flight risk.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious nature of the charges and the facts surrounding the relationship with the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the circumstances warranted bail, focusing on the prosecutrix's consent and the absence of evidence suggesting a flight risk or tampering.
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11203068240627 of 2024 registered with Vanthali Police Station, District Junagadh.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the applicant is resident of Nepal. The applicant was already married at the time of incident and despite that, he had established physical relations with the prosecutrix who was minor at the relevant time. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offences which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.
5. Though served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. Investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. Upon perusal of the statement or prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS it appears that there was a love- affair between the present applicant and the prosecutrix because of the same it was the prosecutrix who had visited the present applicant and had asked him to elope and resultantly, the present applicant and the prosecutrix had eloped with each other and physical relations were established with the consent of the prosecutrix who was aged about 17 years at the relevant time. Having regard to these facts, the present application deserves consideration.
7. This court has also considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 19.11.2024.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 .
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;
(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) shall file an affidavit stating immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial
The court granted bail based on the prosecutrix's consent and lack of evidence suggesting flight risk or witness tampering.
The court granted bail considering the nature of allegations, the applicant's relationship with the victim, and the absence of flight risk, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure compliance.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the need for discretion while imposing conditions to prevent interference with the trial.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure compliance during trial.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's limited involvement in the offence and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the need for strict conditions to prevent interference with the....
The court granted bail based on the applicant's stable condition of the victim and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial atten....
The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody duration and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody status and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure trial integrity.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody duration and lack of flight risk, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court established that bail may be granted considering the nature of the offence, prior custody duration, and the necessity of conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.