IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 9694 of 2025 ==========================================================

ARJUN PRITAMSINGH PUNJABI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

CHETAN D KARIYA(8819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TILAKKUMAR N THAKWANI(10290) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JAY A MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

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.11993006220754 of 2022 registered with A-Division Gandhidham Police Station, Kachchh East-Gandhidham.

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. Sadik A. Ansari 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 merely 15 years and 5 months at the relevant time. Moreover, the trial of the offence is already in progress. 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 has opposed contending that the present applicant had abducted the prosecutrix from the custody of her parents and thereafter she was taken some other place where the applicant had established physical relations with her without her consent. 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. Upon perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer, it appears that there was love affair between herself and the present applicant and because of the same, the prosecutrix had accompanied the present applicant on her own volition and thereafter had stayed with him for several days and the physical relations were established between the two on regular basis with the consent of the prosecutrix. 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.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 31.10.2024.

(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 record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the