IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1167 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAMESHBHAI KATHADBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PIYUSH D GOHIL(13596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.SHATRUGHN S SONI(17589) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 08/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant herein has preferred the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Court) and 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Criminal Misc. Application No.3612 of 2025 and seeking regular bail in connection with the offense registered vide FIR No.11208052250517 of 2025 registered before Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot, for offenses punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 69 of the BNS and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act.

2. The applicant by way of this application has stated that he has not committed any offense and that he has been falsely arraigned as an accused and if granted regular bail, he would abide by all the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he has urge to allow the application, and grant him bail subject to necessary conditions.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Piyush Gohil with learned advocate Mr.Shatrughn Soni for the applicant. Mr.Gohil reiterated the averments of the application submitting that, there was romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim, and the applicant had never committed any offense. The applicant wanted to marry the victim. Hence, considering the said facts, the present application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail subject to necessary conditions.

4. Heard learned APP Mr.Soaham Joshi for the respondent-State, who has strongly resisted the application submitting that, the victim was a minor girl aged 16 years and 5 months. Hence, the question of giving consent for sexual intercourse does not arise. Mr.Joshi has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the age of the applicant, which is 30 years. Hence, the question of he being in love with the victim does not arise. Thus, Mr.Joshi has urged the Court to reject the application.

5. It is pertinent to observe that though notice was served upon the respondent no.2-original complainant, she has chosen not to remain present before this Court.

6. At the outset, the FIR came to be lodged by the mother of the victim, wherein, she has categorically stated that her daughter i.e. the victim aged 16 years and 5 months after having left their house on 07.08.2025, had not returned. On perusing the statement of the victim which came to be recorded by the Investigating Officer, she has mentioned about she having been taken by the applicant to different places, and the applicant having told her that he wanted to marry her, to which, she had told him that she was a minor. However, the applicant having told her that, after she would become major, they would marry and saying so, the applicant had taken her to different places where he had sexual intercourse with her, under such false pretext of marriage. Considering the age of the applicant being 16 years and five months and the age of the applicant being 30 years, it does not appear that there was a romantic relationship between both of them. Rather, it appears to be overt and express that, the applicant had lured the victim under the false pretext of marriage and thereafter, had taken her to various places where he had sexual intercourse with her.

7. On perusing the statement of the victim which came to be recorded by the JMFC of Rajkot under Sectio