IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 13945 of 2025 ==========================================================

VISHALBHAI @ DAKU JAYANTIBHAI GANGADIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 24/09/2025

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 CR. No.11211050250032 of 2025 registered with Thangadh Police Station, Surendranagar.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent – State, learned Advocate Mr. Darshan A. Dave appearing for the respondent – original complainant waives service of notice.

3. Learned Advocate appearing 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the relevant time, and therefore, her consent would be immaterial. 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.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Darshan A. Dave appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the application citing the age of prosecutrix. He submitted that the age of the prosecutrix was merely 14 year and 4 months at the relevant time. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. In the present offence, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Upon perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that there was love affair between the applicant and the prosecutrix and as the parents of the prosecutrix wanted her to get married elsewhere for which she was not agreeable, she had asked the present applicant to elope and thus, the applicant and the prosecutrix had eloped together and had stayed together for a period of one month. During the period of their stay together, the physical relations were established between the two with the consent of the prosecutrix who was aged 14 years and 4 months at the relevant time. Having regard to these aspects, the present application deserves consideration, hence the present application is hereby allowed. 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 22.03.2025.

(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.

7. 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 present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This