IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 23485 of 2025 ==========================================================

JAIPALBHAI HAKABHAI KANJIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR SUBHAM DAVE for MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. PARTH .B. CHAUHAN(14307) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Draft amendment is allowed and the same is ordered to be carried out forthwith.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11211045250158 of 2025 registered with Sayla Police Station, District Surendranagar

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the age of the prosecutrix was merely 16 years and 2 months at the relevant time and the present applicant was well aware with the age of the prosecutrix and despite the same, he had eloped with the prosecturix and had established physical relations with her without her consent. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offence is serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the complainant has opposed the grant of present application citing the age of the prosecution and therefore, he submitted that the present application may not be allowed and the same should be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. Investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. it is pertinent to note that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 1320 of 2023 which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 30.09.2025. however, liberty was granted the applicant to file an application after the victim was found out and the statement of her recorded. learned advocate for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.836 of 2025. In the said proceeding, the Division Bench of this Court has recorded the statement of prosecution wherein she had categorically stated that she on her own volition had accompanied the present applicant as her relatives sold her for the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to some person. Having regard to these facts, the present application deserves to be allowed.

7. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applic