IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4419 of 2026 ==========================================================

SANNY MUKESHBHAI SOLANKI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

NISHITH P ACHARYA(9308) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 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. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nishith Acharya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Aditya Jadeja appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

1.1. Though served and time was granted to the complainant to engage an advocate through legal aid, as on today, nobody has remained present.

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. 11202038250282/2025 registered with Medhpar (Padana) Police Station, Jamnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 4, 6 of 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. 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 15 years 03 months, the age of the present applicant being

21 years could not be ignored.

ii. It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having a love affair, more particularly, the prosecutrix and the applicant had eloped and stayed together for around 45 days, this allaying any apprehension as regards threat, force or coercion involved and reflecting the consensual nature of the relationship.

iii.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh & Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 47 having noted the fact of the POCSO Act being misused even when the case is one of a romantic / consensual relationship between adolescents or one where the prosecutrix / victim is adolescent and where the age gap between the parties is not substantial.

iv. The fact of the present applicant being in custody since

24.05.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.

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 r