The court ruled that the prosecutrix's age below 18 years rendered her consent immaterial, justifying the grant of bail under specific conditions.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

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

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11202046240308 of 2024 registered with Panch B Division Police Station, Jamnagar

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the relevant time, and therefore, her consent would be immaterial. Moreover, the applicant is the resident of State of Haryana. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Learned advocate for the original complainant has also opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present applicant had submitted a forged marriage certificate before the concerned Police Station. Though no marriage has taken place as per the statement of the prosecutrix had taken place between the present applicant and the prosecutrix. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, upon perusal of statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that there was a love affair between present applicant and the prosecutrix and because of the same, both of them had eloped with each other and physical relations were established between them with the consent of prosecutrix, who was aged about 16 years and 9 months at the relevant time.

6. This Court has also 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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal 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 & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;

9. 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 issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

10. 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.

11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of prel