IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4689 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAVAL DILIPBHAI RAMESHBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MAULIN D SONI(9488) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR CR MISHRA(3474) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 26/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.R. Mishra 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 Part–A-C.R. No. 11206033250381 of 2025 registered with Unjha Police Station, Dist. Mehsana, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 75(2), 78(2) of BNS and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

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. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- Though the Act envisages that the complainant is required to be heard before any order is passed, yet this Court has considered the fact that the victim in her statement in the trial, has turned hostile. Considering the same, more particularly the victim inter alia stating that none of the allegations as levelled in the FIR, had taken place between the applicant and the victim, to this Court the present application could be considered without any reference to the complainant party.

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

7. 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, 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.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as Part–A-C.R. No. 11206033250381 of 2025 registered with Unjha Police Station, Dist. Mehsana, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concer