The court granted bail based on the nature of allegations in a relationship context, applying principles of discretion and referencing prior judgments.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.B. Rathore appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned advocate Mr. Rudra Mehta appearing for the original complainant.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Rudra Mehta submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and he may be permitted to file his vakalatnama.

Permission as sought for is granted.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Rudra Mehta appearing for the original complainant requests this Court to accept affidavit tendered by the original complainant, the same is taken on record.

4. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. 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. 11202009251555 of 2025 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64(2)(M), 65(1), 69 of B.N.S. and Sections 4 , 6 of the POCSO Act.

6. 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 charge-sheet is filed, 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.

7. 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 as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

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

i. The age of the prosecutrix being around 15 years and one month and whereas, the age of the applicant being around 22 years, could not be ignored.

ii. It also prima facie appears, that the present is a case of love relationship between the parties and whereas the statement of the prosecutrix dated 27.09.2025, points out to the said aspect.

iii. This Court also considers the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The State of Uttar Pradesh versus Anurudh & Anr. 2026 INSC 47 .

iv. This Court has also appreciated the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and whereas, it prima facie reflects that the parties may have settled the matter inter-se.

v. While the learned APP brought to the notice of the Court that there are two antecedents of the present applicant, yet, considering that the FIR is a fall out of a love relationship and the parties have settled, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

vi. The applicant being in custody since 27.09.2025 and the charge-sheet having been filed.

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 .

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

10. H