ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Soaham Joshi 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. 11217004250250 of 2025 registered with Balisana Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 79, 316(2), 318(4), 308(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

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, further incarceration of the applicant will not benefit the Investigation Officer in any manner. 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 as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise 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. The applicant is a permanent resident of Sabarkantha district, hence would be available at the time of trial;

ii. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents;

iii. The investigation is over. Charge-sheet has been filed.

iv. The victim had given a written complaint before the Balisana Police Station on 13.10.2025. On perusing the said complaint, there are only allegations about monetary transactions between the victim and the applicant, however, there is not a whisper about applicant having committed rape or forcible sexual intercourse with the victim.

v. The applicant also having submitted a written reply dated 29.10.2025 as regards the complaint of the victim dated 13.10.2025, before the Balisana Police Station, wherein also, facts about monetary transactions have been mentioned, however, the applicant has stated that it was the victim, who owed money to him.

vi. Though period of FIR is mentioned from 31.08.2024 to 24.09.2025, the victim had given a written application dated 13.10.2025 before the Balisana Police Station, wherein, there were no allegations as regards sexual assault having been committed with her, by the applicant.

vii. The apprehension of the learned APP that, the applicant would once again indulge in similar or such offence, can be put to rest by imposing stringent conditions.

viii. The applicant is aged 32 years, whereas, the victim is aged 46 years.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Hence, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11217004250250 of 2025 with Balisana Police Station, Patan, on executing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that