ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 11210060260044 of 2026 registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5(l), 5(j-ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that, considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation leveled, 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 OfÏcer 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.

5.1 Mr. Mr. Sandip Kapadiya states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant. Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Sandip Kapadiya and place it on record. Mr. Sandip Kapadiya, learned advocate for the original complainant places on record the afÏdavit filed by the original complainant Maltiben Baijnath Kevat and submits that, the dispute between the applicant and the original complainant has been amicably settled. The original complainant Maltiben Baijnath Kevat is present in the court today and has afÏrmed the contents of her afÏdavit.

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 Surat district, hence would be available at the time of trial;

ii. The applicant has no criminal antecedents;

iii. The investigation being over the chargesheet has been filed before the trial court;

iv. The original complainant Maltiben Baijnath Kevat has filed her afÏdavit, wherein, she has stated that, the dispute between her and the applicant has been amicably settled, and that, they do not object, if bail is granted to the applicant;

v. The original complainant is present before the court today and she has afÏrmed the facts of her afÏdavit;

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. 11210060260044 of 2026 registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat, 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 he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender his pass