IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 17517 of 2025 ==========================================================

KIRAN S./O KALUSING LALGIRI BIST CHHETRI (NEPALI)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR.HITENDRA D RAJPUT(7224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.

1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hitendra Rajput appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Jay Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. 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.11203023240799/2024 registered with A- Division Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 99 of the BNS and Sections 4, 5,(L), 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is filed 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. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. While very serious allegations have been levelled in the FIR, it would appear that the same may not be co-relatable to the present applicant and may be co-relatable to the other accused.

ii. The statement and the further statement of the victim/prosecutrix revealing that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in the same room in a hotel when the police had raided the premises along with the relatives of the victim and whereas, it does not appear that the victim and the applicant had established any physical relation before the same.

iii.The fact of the applicant being in custody since 12.09.2024 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the investigating officer.

iv. The apprehension raised by the learned APP that since the applicant is not the resident of State of Gujarat, the applicant may abscond, could be allayed by imposing suitable conditions.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. regi