Jaydipbhai Ujamshibhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. L.M. Zala appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Mohitsinh Jadeja appearing on behalf of the original complainant.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

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. 11211015240866 of 2024 registered with Dhrangadhara City Police Station, Surendrangar for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 76, 308(2), 351(3), 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(e) of the Information Technology Act.

Learned advocate Mr. L.M. Zala, for the applicant would submit that the period of offence as noticeable from the FIR is between August, 2024 to November,2024. It is submitted that while the allegation is of committing forcible rape upon the complainant, yet, during pendency of the application, the applicant and the complainant had settled the matter inter-se and whereas, it is submitted by learned advocate that while as far as the applicant of Criminal MISC. Application No. 15044 of 2025 is concerned, the main allegation was against the said applicant whereas as far as the applicants of Criminal MISC. Application No. 15096 of 2025 the said applicants are stated to have aided the main applicant in committing the alleged crime. Learned advocate would submit that considering the report of the IO, more particularly whereby it would be apparent that the relation was consensual. Learned advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the complainant/victim, more particularly, stating that she would not have any objection if the applicant is enlarged on regular bail. The said submissions of learned advocate Mr. Zala have been supported by learned advocate Mr. Jadeja appearing on behalf of the first informant who would reiterate the contents of the affidavit.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail. Learned APP would further submit that while the allegation against the main accused is of sexually assaulting the complainant and also having taken a video of the assault, the case against the other accused is of having aided the main accused. Learned APP would further submit that considering the nature of the allegation leveled, this Court may not consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Prima facie, it would appear that the relationship between the main accused and the complainant was consensual, and whereas, the case against the other accused is of assisting the main accused.

ii. The fact of the complainant having submitted an affidavit submitting that she would not have any objection to the present applicants being released on regular bail/fortifying the prima facie observation that the relationship was consensual.

iii. the fact of chargesheet having been filed and no further requirement of keeping the applicant in custody.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against 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.

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. 11211015240866 of 2024 with Dhrangadhara City Police Station, District:- Surendrangar, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands 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 passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

[f] mark presence once a month before the concerned Police Station for a period of six months;

The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.