Upon completion of the investigation and filing of relevant charges, the absence of criminal antecedents and the specific context of the victim's conduct justify the exercise of judicial discretion to grant regular bail to ensure personal liberty.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11216009260024 of 2026 registered with the Mansa Police Station, Gandhinagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 17.01.2026 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record the statement of the victim and submitted that the victim voluntarily fled away with the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant is a young boy, aged about 23 years, having no past criminal antecedents. Furthermore, there is a delay of one and a half day in registering the FIR. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Mariya M. Dalal appearing for the original complainant has adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned APP and prays that the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. 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. This Court has also considered the following aspects;

a) That the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed;

b) That the applicant-accused is in jail since 17.01.2026;

c) That, from the statement of the victim, it appears that she voluntarily fled away along with the present applicant;

d) That, the applicant-accused does not have any past antecedents;

8. This Court has also 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.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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.

10. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11216009260024 of 2026 registered with the Mansa Police Station, Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a