IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6438 of 2025 ==========================================================

RAVI @ BULU GULABBHAI DANTANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS.AKSHITABA SOLANKI(6782) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY A MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 TAHIR S SAIYED(8983) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 22/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. 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.11191031240937 of 2024 registered with Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned advocate appearing for the Original Complainant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Tahir S. Saiyed waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Original Complainant.

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 opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the age of the prosecutrix was 13 years and 9 months whereas the age of the applicant was 23 years. There was no love affair between the prosecutrix and the present applicant. The applicant had taken the prosecutrix with him without her will and thereafter, the physical relations were established between the two without the consent of the prosecutrix. He also submitted that, yesterday only, some of the friends of the present applicant had forcefully entered the house of the prosecutrix and had assaulted the father of the prosecutrix as well as an old aged grand-mother of the prosecutrix. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant submitted that the age of the prosecutrix was merely 13 years and 9 months. He further submitted that there was no consent given by the prosecutrix for physical relations and the applicant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix without her consent. He further submitted that the family members of the present applicant are continuously threatening the family members of the prosecutrix to withdraw the FIR. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. Though, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, has stated that the applicant had established physical relations with her without her consent, in the history given by her before the Doctor, she has categorically stated that no physical relations were established between the two. Having regard to these aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also 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