ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant who came to be arrested by Prantij Police Station, District Sabrkantha in connection with FIR bearing Part – A – I.C.R. No.11209041250833 of 2025 dated 30.08.2025 has preferred the present application praying for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 75(1), 137(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m) and 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 as well as under Sections 4, 5(L), 5(M), 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The applicant by way of his application has submitted that, he is innocent and not committed any offence. He is law abiding citizen and he has been falsely implicated in the said matter. It is stated by the applicant that, there is neither direct nor indirect involvement on his part in the offence. It is further mentioned that, the applicant, the original complainant and his in-laws were having some disputes regarding some parking spots, as the shop godown of the original complainant was situated at the entrance of the society, where the house of the in-laws of the original complainant is situated. It is further mentioned that, previously there were quarrels between the applicant and the original complainant and his in-laws, as regards parking spaces and for stationing vehicles for loading and unloading materials. The FIR has been filed after the delay of two days. The family members of the applicant have requested the Investigation Officer to recover the CCTV footages of the cameras, which are installed in the society. The investigation being over and charge-sheet has been filed hence, the present bail application be allowed and the applicant be released on regular bail subject to necessary conditions.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Raj Jobanputra with learned advocate Mr. Akshay Matani for the applicant who has reiterated the averments of the application. According to learned advocate for the applicant no rape has been committed by the applicant upon the minor victim. He has placed on record the Medical Certificate of the victim, which does not mention about rape having been committed with the victim. Learned advocate has also submitted that, it was because of the strained relationship between the applicant and the original complainant, he has been falsely arraigned as accused in the offence. Hence, considering the facts the applicant be released on bail subject to necessary condition.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No.1 – State who has strongly objected this application submitting that, the applicant had committed heinous crime with the minor victim who is aged only 7 years. Ms. Jhaveri has drawn the attention of the Court towards the history, which was given by the minor victim before the doctor wherein, she has categorically stated about the sexual assaults committed by the applicant. Ms. Jhaveri has also submitted that, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the minor victim wherein, she has stuck to her version which she had narrated before the Medical Officer. According Ms. Jhaveri even presuming that, the rape was not committed by the applicant, the fact that the applicant was aged 61 years and the victim was aged only 7 years, this Court must no show any leniency in exercising the discretion in favour of the applicant. Thus, the present application should be rejected.

5. At the outset, the FIR came to be lodged by the father of the victim wherein, he had mentioned about he being informed by his wife that, the victim girl not being able to sleep at night and waking-up startled in the midst of night. Thereafter, the original complainant’s wife i.e. the victim’s mother had asked the victim to which she had stated that, while she would return after her Kuran lessons, the applicant who was having a shop near her grandmother’s house would call her inside his shop, and thereafter, taking her on his lap, would kiss her and thereafter, would remove he