IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2364 of 2026 ==========================================================

KALPESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

CHIRAG A PRAJAPATI(8468) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/03/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Leave to amend cause title. To be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chirag Prajapati appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr Aditya Jadeja appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

4. 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. 11191023250473 of 2025 registered with Vadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections

64(2)(m), 70(1), 351(3) and 54 of the B.N.S. Act.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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

i. Allegation being that the accused had raped the complainant, prima facie, it would appear that the present may be a case of an exaggerated version or a case of consensual relationship more particularly, it would appear that the complainant, may have been in extramarital relationship with the present applicant and the FIR being filed since the relationship having soured for some reason.

ii. It would also appear that the complainant herself accepts that the present applicant had physical relations with the complainant on various occasions, at his home and even in certain hotel. The complainant also alleges that the present applicant along with her friend also had physical relationship with the present applicant at a hotel.

iii.The complaint not inspiring confidence since the complaint though alleges forcible rape yet, it does not appear that she had resisted the same at any point of time since the applicant and complainant are stated to be neighbours living in a chawl, which by its very nature would be a congested area. Further, the complainant does not appear to have resisted when she had been allegedly forcibly raped in a hotel by the applicant and his friend.

iv. It appears that even after the complainant having been allegedly raped on number of occasions allegedly including once by the applicant and his friend, the complainant did not file any complaint nor did she complain about the alleged incidents to anyone.

v. The fact of the FIR, not reflecting any proximate cause for the FIR to have been filed on the date it was filed.

vi. The applicant being in custody since the 13.07.2025, charge-sheet having been filed and the applicant not having any antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail.

Th