ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Nimesh Patel submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 and that he may be permitted to file his Vakalatnama. Permission is granted.

1.1 Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Aydi for learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Nimesh Patel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Patel 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. 11821050251277 of 2025 registered with Sagtala Police Station, District Dahod, for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6 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 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. I have 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 13 years and 04 months, the age of the present applicant being around 19 years could not be ignored.

ii. Prime facie it also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having a love affair. It also appears that they had eloped and stayed together for approximately one month, thus negating any allegations of threat, force or coercion involved and reflecting the consensual nature of the relationship.

iii. 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.

iv. The fact of the present applicant being in custody since 07.11.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer and the applicant not having any antecedent.

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 Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11821050251277 of 2025 registered with Sagtala Police Station, District Dahod, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) wit