The court may exercise discretion to grant regular bail when the accused has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, and has reached an amicable settlement with the complainant and victims' guardians, particularly after the charge-sheet has been filed.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

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 him on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196043250691 of 2025 registered with Kapurai Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Sections 75(2), 296(b) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 8, 9(f) and 12 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 leveled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that, since the charge-sheet is further incarceration of the applicant will not benefit the Investigation OfÏcer in any manner. 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 discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

5.1 Mr. Mangal V Gadhavi, learned advocate for the original complainant places on record the afÏdavits filed by the original complainant Simaben Bhagyashali, and all the guardians of the victim girls namely, Patel Akjilaben Imranbhai, S.S. Diwan, Kiranben Vasava, Sanjaybhai Rathodiya, Javidbhai Patel, Valibhai Yunusbhai Patel, Rajeshbhai Chauhan, Yunusbhai Vorapatel, Jyotiben Bhoi, Dhirendrakumar Vankar and instead of one of the guardian Rohit Hetalben Mahendrabhai, her other daughter Rohit Kashish Mahendrabhai are present before the Court and submit that, the dispute between the applicant, the original complainant and the guardians of victim girls has been amicably settled. The original complainant and the guardians of victim girls are present in the court and have afÏrmed the contents of their respective afÏdavits. All of them have stated that, there was some misunderstanding, which had resulted in filing of the FIR against the applicant.

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

i. The applicant is permanent a resident of Vadodara, hence would be available at the time of trial;

ii. The applicant has no criminal antecedents;

iii. The original complainant Simaben Bhagyashali, Patel Akjilaben Imranbhai, S.S. Diwan, Kiranben Vasava, Sanjaybhai Rathodiya, Javidbhai Patel, Valibhai Yunusbhai Patel, Rajeshbhai Chauhan, Yunusbhai Vorapatel, Jyotiben Bhoi, Dhirendrakumar Vankar and instead of Hetalben her other daughters Rohit Kashish have filed their respective afÏdavits, wherein, they have stated that, the dispute between them and the applicant has been amicably settled, and that, they do not object, if bail is granted to the applicant.

iv. The original complainant and the guardians of victim girls are present before the court today and they have afÏrmed the facts of their respective afÏdavits;

7. 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 Investiga