Sanjay vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No. 217/2026 registered at Police Station - Station Road District -Ratlam for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 of BNS and 7/8 of POCSO Act. Applicant is in detention since 12.04.2026.

As per prosecution story, mother of the victim lodged missing report of her daughter aged 17 years 10 months. On the basis of said report, investigation was carried out and the victim was recovered. Accordingly, FIR was registered against the applicant.

The counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant is aged 19 years and the victim is aged 17 years and 10 months. It is further submitted that the applicant and victim resided together for about three days. From the statement of victim recorded u/S 183 BNSS, it transpired that applicant has not committed any misdeed with her. On completion of investigation, chargsheet is filed. Trial will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State submits that victim has been informed about filing of bail application. He further submits that looking to the material available on record, prima facie, involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is made out. Therefore, taking into consideration, the seriousness of the offence under the POCSO Act and other factors, no discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

Considering the fact that applicant was arrested on 12.04.2026 and now the chargsheet has been filed and the material available on record, more particularly, the statement of victim recorded u/S 183 of BNSS, 2023 and that the applicant and the victim have lived together for three days, I am of the view that discretion should be exercised to release the applicant on bail as further incarceration of the applicant will create difficulty for the applicant, victim and their family members and also considering the observation made in the judgment of Apex court Hon'ble Apex Court in the resent judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anirudh and another [2026 SCC OnLine SC 40] , whereby the Court has observed regarding such relationship which can be considered as Romeo and Juliet relationship. Considering these aspects and considering the principle 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, the application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial. In addition to this, (1) He will not act in any manner which influence the proceedings of trial or influence any of the witnesses;(2) He will not indulge in any criminal activity by misusing the liberty granted by this order; (3) He shall remain present at the time of trial without any default; (4) He shall make himself available as and when required in trial; (5) He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.