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

2568 of 2025 ==========================================================

DALPATSINH @ RAVI LAXMANSINH GOHIL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR LB DABHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yash Gupta appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.2.

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. 11197035250414 of 2025 registered with Desar Police Station, Dist. Vadodara, for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 78(2), 127(4) and 140(3) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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 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.

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 the 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 allegation in the FIR being very serious i.e. the applicant had alleged to have committed rape on the complainant.

(ii) The fact that the applicant and the complainant prima facie appear to be having relationship, more particularly both the applicant and the complainant being neighbours.

(iii) It also appears in this regard that the applicant and the complainant had eloped from 10.03.2025 and even as per the FIR, the complainant had been dropped at bus stand on 21.05.2025.

(iv) The complaint appearing to be filed around two and half months thereafter i.e. on 08.07.2025, prima facie allaying an apprehension that the relationship was forceful (v) The fact of the applicant being in custody since 11.07.2025, charge-sheet having been filed and the applicant having no antecedents.

(vi) not to try and contact the complainant by any means whatsoever.

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

7. 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.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11197035250414 of 2025 register