IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3455 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAJUBHAI @BHIKHO BHARATBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS NILAM N CHAUHAN(6635) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR KRUTIK PARIKH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 25/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Krutik Parikh appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Ms.

Nilam Chauhan for the respondent.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Ms. Chauhan waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

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.11198015251702 of 2025 registered with Bortalav Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section

6 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 and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have 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:-

i. While the age of the prosecutrix is stated to be around 16 and half years, the age of the present applicant being 26 years could not be ignored.

ii.

iii. It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having a love affair. It is also pointed out that the same had resulted in pregnancy and later on abortion.

iv. Learned advocate Ms. Chauhan for the complainant would vehemently oppose submitting that the victim had undergone severe trauma, yet it would also appear that at some stage, the parties were into a consensual relationship, more particularly in absence of any threat, force or coercion alleged.

v. The fact of the present applicant being in custody since 06.10.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer and the applicant having one antecedent under the Gambling Act.

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 C.R. No.11198015251702 of 2025 registered with Bor