IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 13994 of 2025 ==========================================================

VIJAYBHAI RAVJIBHAI SOLANKI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI(12401) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

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

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11215039250077 of 2025 registered with Virsad Police Station, District Anand

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the age of the applicant was 27 years whereas the age of the prosecutrix was 15 years at the relevant time. Thus, there was huge age gape between the present applicant and the prosecutrix. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offence is serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the grant of present application inter-alia contending that the applicant and the complainant are residing in same vicinity and if the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, there are all chances that some untoward incident may happen. He has, therefore, submitted that the present application should not be allowed and the same should be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. Investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. Upon perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that there was love-affair between herself and the present applicant and because of the same, the prosecutrix on her own volition had accompanied the present applicant and had stayed with him for several days and during the said stay, the physical relations were established between the two with consent of prosecutrix who was aged 15 years and 6 months at the relevant time. Having regard to these facts, the present application deserves to be allowed.

7. 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.

(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. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;

(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of