Bail in cases involving minors requires balancing personal liberty with the gravity of the offence and societal security. The filing of a charge-sheet does not mandate bail, especially where concerns of influence, witness intimidation, and evidence tampering persist in cases of serious sexual exploitation.

ORDER :

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP and learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

[2.0] By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR No.11208003250926 of 2025 registered with Gandhigram-2 (Uni.) Police Station, District Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M)(I), 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

[3.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and applicant is falsely arraigned as accused in the alleged offence. Further, the complaint is filed belatedly and during the period of two years, victim did not utter a whisper about the alleged incident. No any statement of witnesses from office or neighboring residents of the victim has been recorded. No any evidence which suggests involvement of the present applicant and only considering the land dispute, mother of the victim has filed the complaint and considering the false involvement in the offence, he has requested to allow the present application as applicant is in custody since October, 2025. He has further submitted that even, no any CDR or any other material is collected during the investigation.

[5.0] Learned APP appearing for the State as well as learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel appearing for the original complainant have opposed the present bail application on the ground that the victim at the time of offence was a minor aged only 15 years and 10 months and the present applicant since last two years was repeatedly exploiting the victim by putting the victim in semiconscious condition by deceitfully offering role in Gujarati film as the applicant is a producer and Director of Gujarati films and under the pretext of audition of victim, applicant – accused has taken undue advantage of the victim and sexually abused and assaulted the victim and hence, consent of victim, who was minor at the time of offence, has nothing to do. It is further submitted that so far as delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, the victim was minor and therefore, she remained silent and applicant has taken undue advantage by luring the victim to offer her role in Gujarati film by deceitfully administering intoxicating substance to the victim. Considering the aforesaid fact as well as history given before the Medical Officer and the statement of victim, prima facie involvement of applicant is revealed. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of delaying the trial on behalf of the prosecution since there are only 18 witnesses and most of the witnesses are panch witnesses and therefore, conclusion of trial will also not take much time. If the applicant is released on bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out as the applicant is highly influential person and would take advantage of his financial capacity and his position in the society if released on bail.

[6.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perusing the investigation papers, it appears that complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 – original complainant for the offence under Sections 64(2)(M)(I), 65(1) of the BNS and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act wherein it is alleged that applicant is a film Director of Gujarat films and under the pretext of offering role, applicant used to call the victim to his office for giving audition and victim was lured by the applicant and was subsequently exploited by the present applicant – accused and repeatedly developed sexual relationship with the minor victim. Admittedly, as on date of offence, the victim was aged 15 years and 10 month