The court balanced the applicant's rights and the prosecutrix's protections in a bail application involving a minor, highlighting evidential evaluation and legal principles governing bail.

ORAL ORDER

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. 11191035250086 of 2025 registered with Naroda Police Station. Ahmedabad City.

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 the age of the prosecutrix was merely 17 years and therefore the present application should be dismissed. 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.

5.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the present application contending that the present applicant was aged around 29 years and the prosecutrix was aged around 17 years. Thus, there was a huge age gap between the two. The present applicant was also married when the incident had taken place. She further submitted that the present applicant had taken disadvantage of the age of the prosecutrix and had allured her for relationship in question. There was no consent given by the prosecutrix for any physical relations to the present applicant. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

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. Learned advocate for the applicant has produced on record WhatsApp Chats which had taken place between the present applicant and the prosecutrix, which indicates that there was a love affair between the present applicant and the prosecutrix and because of the same, physical relationship appears to have been established between the two. Though the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS as well as her history given before the Doctor has stated that the physical relations were established by the present applicant with her without her consent, it does not appear to be true having regard to the chats which had taken place between the parties. The age of the prosecutrix was 17 years and 3 months at the relevant time. 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 22.1.2025.

(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 reco