IA ORDER

1. RULE.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant - accused is seeking suspension of sentence and release on regular bail during pendency of the present appeal against the judgment and order passed in Special POCSO Case No.34/2020 by the learned Judge, FTSC (POCSO) Court, Amreli at Rajula on 24.09.2025, whereby, the present applicant - accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default, rigorous imprisonment of 03 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munjal V. Acharya for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Urmila N. Desai, appearing through online mode, for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Munjal V. Acharya for the applicant submits that the applicant was aged 21 years on the date of the incident and in fact, the evidence would show that the applicant and the victim were in a love relationship and the victim had left her parental home of her own free will to join the company of the applicant and thereafter, they had lived together. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim was aged 17 years and 05 months on the date of the incident but there is no evidence to prove the age of the victim, the only evidence that has emerged on record is the birth-certificate of the victim which is produced at Exh.66. PW17 has stated that he had given a copy of the birth-certificate to the Investigating Officer and the complainant or the victim has not produced the birth-certificate on record. The victim has not stated her date of birth before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the victim has admitted that when she left her parental home, she had taken her Adhar Card, birth-certificate and two pairs of clothes and it has also emerged on record that prior to the date of offence, the victim was found with a mobile phone given to her by the applicant by her mother and she was beaten up by her mother. Learned advocate further submits that it is a pure case of love affair between the parties and as the age of the victim is not proved, the impugned judgement and order of conviction suffers from patent irregularity and perversity. Moreover, the applicant has been sentenced for a fixed period of 10 years and the present appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and hearing of the same would take some long time and hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period with hardened criminals. The applicant has a good case on merits and hence, the application may be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Ms. Urmila N. Desai for the respondent No.2 have jointly objected to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the present applicant as he has been involved in a very serious offence, however, necessary orders may be passed in the interest of justice.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgement and order and paper book produced by learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that the evidence suffers from major contradictions and omissions and in the evidence, it has emerged that the applicant and the victim were in a love relationship and the victim had left her parental home of her own free will in the middle of the night with her Aadhar Card, birth-certificate and two pairs of clothes and had joined the company of the applicant. They had resided voluntarily at some places and the victim had never raised any hue and cry and thereafter, as