IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL)

NO. 22177 of 2024 ================================================================

SAGAR @ PRIYAKANT DHIRUBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

THROUGH JAIL for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ===============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 11/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed for regular bail successively filed after withdrawal of the bail application vide order dated 03.12.2019.

2. Pending the application, the Court had called for the progress in the trial, to which the Principal District Judge has reported that there are 22 witnesses whose evidence has been recorded. It appears that the trial is at the stage, where the victim-PW No.2 and the doctor PW No.3, who had examined the victim, who were examined and on account of absence of any advocate on behalf of the accused, right to cross-examination was closed and thereafter, on behalf of the accused-applicant, application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for recalling of both PW No.2-Victim and PW No.3- Doctor, which came to be allowed, pursuant to which witnesses PW Nos.2 and 3 were recalled for cross- examination. PW No.3 has already been examined however, summon issued upon the minor victim was not responded to as reportedly father of the victim had remained present. The father was made to understand that on account of recalling of the witnesses, the victim was required to be once again examined by way of cross- examination by the advocate for the accused. It is at that position that the matter is pending today.

3. The Court has found that the nature of offense which is evident from the Column No.5 of the charge-sheet would read as under:-

“An offence under sections 377, 114 of I.P.C., sections 4, 7, 17 of POCSO Act and section 67(B) of Information Technology Act is committed in such a way that, the accused mentioned in the column no. 1, along with a Juvenile in conflict with the law named Meet alias Krish s/o Ajitbhai, by caste Chauhan, age 14 years and 11 Months, took minor son of the complainant and victim witness Pratik, age 12 years to an open field located near Vankarvas, Mouje Bareja about eight days prior to 19/04/2019, and by intimidating him, opened the chain of his pant and put his penis in the mouth of the witness. The Juvenile in conflict with the law associated with him recorded a video of the incident and made viral to other people through Whatsapp. Both these accused abetted each other and as it appears proved that the accused have committed the offence, I hereby commit to conduct the trial against the accused.”

4. The Court also finds that the bail application before the trial Court came to be rejected on 27.09.2024 on account of the seriousness of the offense.

5. Today also, when the victim is yet to cross-examine on account of being recalled as at the relevant time learned advocate for the accused did not cross-examine the victim, apparently delay is caused at the hands of the applicant for conclusion of the trial.

6. Considering the nature of offense and the decision pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in case of X v/s. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in, 2024 INSC 909, particularly observations made in para-14, learned APP opposes the grant of bail as this offense is also of serious nature and that the victim is yet to be cross-examined.

7. Considering the report, the trial is almost at the fag end and therefore, is ordered to be expedited preferably within a period of three months from today. From the pleadings, in the application made before this Court previously, it is claimed that the financial condition of the applicant is very poor and therefore, the trial Court may