The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody duration, the nature of allegations, and the lack of evidence suggesting flight risk or witness tampering.

ORDER :

Leave to amend. The amendment to be carried out immediately.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11209055240526 of 2024 registered with Vijaynagar Police Station. Sabarkantha.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned advocate for the original complainant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that there is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was having a love affair with the present applicant and therefore, the relations between the two were not consensual in nature. The medical examination of the prosecutrix prima facie proves the aspect of sexual intercourse with the present applicant. Moreover, the prosecutrix in her statement during the course of investigation as well as in her history given before the Doctor, has categorically stated that she was sexually abused by the present applicant against her will. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Dhawal G. Barot for the original complainant has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the original complainant has no objection if the present application is allowed and the applicant herein is ordered to be enlarged on bail. He therefore submitted to pass an appropriate order.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The incident alleged in the FIR has taken place on 16.8.2024, whereas, the FIR came to be lodged on 19.8.2024. In her statement, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the FIR was not initially lodged on 16.8.2024, as the talks of settlement was going on. Subsequently, since herself as well as her family members came to know that she would be paid compensation by the Government if the FIR is lodged, therefore the FIR came to be lodged by her parents. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has 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 22.8.2024.

(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. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Applicati