The court held that the grant of bail is appropriate when serious allegations lack substantial prima facie evidence, considering familial relationships and allegations' nature.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.J.V.Padhiyar appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

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. 11996003260100/2026 registered with Deodar Police Station, Vav-Tharad for the offence punishable under Sections 69 , 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS .

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 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, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. While the offence mentioned in the FIR appears to be quite serious, yet, prima facie, it would appear that the present applicant may not have any role to play in the offence concerned.

ii. It would appear that the FIR inter alia alleges that a distant relative of the husband of the present applicant had induced the complainant to enter into an extramarital relationship and whereas, it would appear that the complainant may have a long standing relation with the said accused.

iii.It would also appear that the complainant also alleges that co-accused – Yash had also raped her more particularly by telling her that he would reveal the fact of the complainant having extramarital relationship with the accused no.1.

iv. As regards the present applicant, it would appear that the present applicant appears to be a cousin brother of the complainant and whereas, allegation against the present applicant appear to be that while complainant was staying at the house of the applicant, the applicant had forcibly raped her.

v. Prima facie, to this Court, it would appear that the way the allegation has been narrated, does not inspire any confidence.

vi. It also prima facie appears that as far as the accused no.1 is concerned i.e. distant relative of the husband of the complainant, the fact of the complainant having an extramarital affair with the said person, may prima facie be revealed.

vii. It also appears that as of now, except for statement under Section 183 of the complainant, no other material is produced.

viii.Considering the fact that the present applicant is closely related to the complainant herself and also considering that the applicant is also a 24 year old person so also considering the way the FIR has been narrated, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

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

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

8. Hence, the presen