ORDER :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.U. Malek appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the respondent – State.

2. The applicant has filed this application which is a successive bail 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. 11213023230306 of 2023 registered with Jetpur Taluka Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Y.U. Malek, appearing for the applicant, submits that the present application is a successive bail application and the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was not entertained by this Hon’ble Court, however, liberty was reserved for the applicant to approach this Court after the recording of the victim's deposition, therefore, the present application is filed by the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Malek submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.06.2023, therefore, considering the period of incarceration already spent by the applicant, it is requested that this bail application be entertained by this Court by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Learned advocate Mr. Malek submits that in the charge-sheet, total 22 persons were cited as witnesses, out of them only seven have been examined till date. Therefore, trial will take a considerable long time to conclude the trial, and the applicant may not be kept behind bars for an indefinite period through no fault of his own. Learned advocate Mr. Malek further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has recently reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Furthermore, the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. Considering the above factual aspects, learned senior advocate Mr. Tolia submits that the bail application deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah has vehemently objected to the present application, and submitted that as this is a successive bail application, the merits of the case need not be reconsidered. He further submitted that while rejecting the earlier bail application, liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant to approach this Court only after the recording of the victim's deposition, copies of the victim's deposition are already annexed to the memo of the petition.He submitted that a glance at the contents of the said deposition reveals that the victim has deposed in a categorical manner regarding the incident and she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts, the bail application may not be entertained at this juncture, especially since the trial has already commenced, seven witnessed out of 22 witnesses have already been examined, and the trial is likely to be concluded soon. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan, observed that in serious offences where the trial has already commenced, bail applications should generally not be entertained.

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. I have also considered the reasoning given by the concerned court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.

6. It is the settled position of the law that, at this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not necessary and should be avoided.

7. So far as the maintainability of a successive bail application is concerned, it is no longer res-integra that the same is maintainable. However, the question, which aris