ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pravin Gondaliya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Katheriya 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 the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11996002260108 of 2026 registered with Bhabhar Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) of the BNS 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 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, 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. Allegation being that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS.

ii. Prima faice, it would appear that the parties i.e. the present applicant and the complainant were in a relationship, both being aged around 19 years.

iii.It would also appear that the parties were belonging to the same community, known to each other and they were having conversation over chats etc.

iv. It would also prima faice appear that the parties had eloped and had stayed together for three days, where after family members appear to have traced them out.

v. Considering the age of the applicant and considering the way the offence had happened, though the FIR and the 183 statement inter alia alleges about force etc. yet, to this Court it would appear that the same is an after thought whereas, the entire incident happened on account of the relationship between the parties.

vi. Having regard to the above, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

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 F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11996002260108 of 2026 registered with Bhabhar Police Station, District: Banaskantha, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;

[f] mark presence once a fortnight till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter once a month for a period of th