Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21, especially when trial will take time and no recovery is pending.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for successive regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11217041240411 /2024 registered with Saraswati Police Station, Patan for the offences punishable under Section 137(2), 87, 64(2) (M) of the BNS and Section 3(a), 4, 5(L), 6, 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

3. The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicant has no involvement in the offence and has been falsely implicated. Now nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. Present applicant is 20 years old and he is arrested on 26.08.2024. There was affair between the present applicant and they have contact with each other through instagram. Charge-sheet is filed. Commencement of trial will take its own time. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has tendered the affidavit filed by the original Complainant respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

4.1 The Learned APP and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the present application and submitted that there was no any consent. Offence is serious one and considering the irrelevant act, at the relevant point of time, she was minor. Prima facie involvement is there. Applicant is named in the FIR and sufficient evidence is collected during the investigation and her statement was recorded. If he released on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Hence, they have requested to dismiss the present application for successive regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Following aspects have been considered:

1. Charge-sheet is filed;

2. Applicant is arrested on 26.08.2024;

3. commencement of trial will take its own time;

4. State recorded under Section 183 is considered;

5. applicant is having no past antecedents;

6. Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

7. Now nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused;

8. It appears that applicant and the victim came into contact through instagram and developed their relationship, thereafter, both were eloped. Due to this alleged incident took place;

Without discussing in detail, the present application deserves consideration.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. Obviously, the co