The court held that the fact of marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix, and the birth of children, can be a valid ground for granting regular bail even if the accused had absconded for a significant period.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chandni Vyas appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B.Dabhi 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. 09/2009 registered with Ranpur Police Station, District: Botad for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the GP 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. While it would appear that the applicant was arraigned as an accused in FIR being C.R. No.09/2009 and had been enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court and whereas upon the applicant not remaining present, learned trial Court having issued a non-bailable warrant and the applicant have been apprehended on 24.11.2025, and the applicant having approached the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court having rejected the said application, the applicant has approached before this Court.

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

i. While the fact of the applicant not attending the trial is quite serious inasmuch as the applicant appears to have absconded for around 13 years. On the other hand it would appear that the FIR was with regard to the applicant having enticed alleged minor daughter of the complainant and had also threatened the complainant etc. and whereas, it would appear that the present applicant and the prosecutrix had at the relevant point of time married, more particularly, the case of the prosecutrix being that she was major at that time when she had eloped with the present applicant.

ii. It also appears that out of the wedlock, there are two children born, whereas learned advocate Ms.Vyas had also tendered birth certificate of the said children.

iii.It also appears that while the prosecutrix and the applicant, had separated later on yet, the fact of the parties having married, to this Court would be a reason for the applicant to be released from custody though the abscondence, may have persuaded this Court not to exercise jurisdiction.

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 the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail