IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1499 of 2026 ========================================================

RAHUL RAMESHBHAI MURJIBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

JIGNESHKUMAR M NAYAK(8558) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JAY DAKWALA FOR MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Respondent(s)

No. 2 NOTICE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER, SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HARDIK SONI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 18/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigneshkumar Nayak appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Jay Dakwala for learned Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 waives service of rule on behalf of 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. 11191007250559 of 2025 registered with Bapunagar Police Station, Ahmedbad City for the offence punishable under Sections b 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 after filing of the charge-sheet.

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 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. This Court has 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 and 4 months, the age of the present applicant being 25 years could not be ignored.

(ii) Prima facie it appears to be a case of a love affair between the parties and whereas it also appears that the parties were in a long term relationship. The statement given by the prosecutrix before the doctor, reveals as much.

(iii) Learned Advocate for the applicant also relies upon Whats app chat between the parties which would clearly reflect consensual relationship.

(iv) 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.

(v) The fact of the present applicant being in custody since 04.10.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Ch