ORDER

1. 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. 11214008250111 of 2025 registered with Bardoli Town Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Section 64(1), 351(3), 351(2)(3) and 54 of the BNSS and Section 66(e) of I.T. Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 08.02.2025, and since then he is in custody. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 9859 of 2025, which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 11.06.2025. However, thereafter, there is no progress in the trial. He further submitted that there is contradiction in the version given by the prosecutrix in her FIR as well as in the history given by her before the Doctor. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions and Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 9859 of 2025, which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 11.06.2025. While dismissing the said application, this court has made the following observations:-

" 5. In the present case, the FIR has been lodged by the prosecutirx herself and in the said FIR, it has been categorically mentioned by her that she happens to be a friend of the present applicant. Owing to this friendship, she had visited the house of the present applicant, upon being called by the present applicant on the pretext that his mother wants to speak with her. However, when the prosecutrix reached to the house of the applicant, she did not find the mother of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had taken the prosecutrix to the bedroom where he allegedly forced himself upon the prosecutrix and established physical relations with her without her consent. From the record it also transpires that the applicant herein had also taken photographs of the prosecutrix in compromising condition and thereafter had forwarded those photos to the co-accused and the said co-accused had published the photographs on social media platform. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that the relation between the applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual, however, from the reading of the FIR itself, it appears that the relationship between the applicant and prosecutirix were merely of friendship. Apparently, the applicant herein wanted to take the relationship further, however, the prosecutrix did not agree for the same."

Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant is not in a position to show any change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application, except for the delay in trial. The Apex Court in its Judgment in Case of X versus State of Rajasthan (2024), has categorically observed that in serious cases like murder and rape, the delay in trial cannot be the ground for the grant of bail to the accused.

6. So far as the aspect of contradiction in the version given by the prosecutrix in her FIR, as well as in the history given before the doctor is concerned, the same is the matter to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence. Hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document