IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.

3094 of 2025 ========================================================

BHARATBHAI VITHHALBHAI BALAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR GOVIND D MER(12546) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR NIRAJ SHARMA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 13/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala on behalf of the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma on behalf of the respondent no.1 -State and learned Advocate Mr. M.M.

Barejia on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent- State.

3. The present appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 11210010250654 of 2025 registered with Laskana Police Station, Surat City for offences punishable under Sections 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that considering the role attributed to the appellant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the appellant 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 appellant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the appellant 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 appellant , this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Barejia appearing for respondent no. 2 has reiterated the submission made by learned APP.

7. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The allegation in the FIR being that the complainant-victim having been raped by the present appellant more particularly the appellant alluring the victim with the promise of marriage etc.

(ii) Furthermore allegation under the Atrocities Act has also been levelled.

(iii) It appears that the complainant-victim and the appellant were known to each other more particularly complaint itself stating that elder sister of the alleged victim and her elder cousin brother, having worked with the present appellant that is in the factory of the appellant four years prior to the incident in question.

(iv) The fact of the present appellant contracting the elder sister of the victim for getting some female workers to work in his factory.

(v) Considering the said fact, it could be presumed that the allegation under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been alleged for enhancing the seriousness of the complaint.

(vi) The fact of the appellant being around 52 years old person and the victim being around 30 years old and marital status of the appellant would be well known to the victim as well as her elder sister and whereas under such circumstances, the allurement of marriage etc. may not stand.

(vii) As noticed above the complainant being aged around 30