Yuvrajbhai Ashvinbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. V.K. Rana for learned Advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Makwana for learned Advocate Mr. Dadhichi L. Limbola on behalf of the respondent No. 2 .

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Limbola waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

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. 11821024250373 of 2025 registered with Garbada Police Station, District Dahod, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. 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.

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 the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. Learned Advocate Mr. Makwana for the respondent No.2 adopts the submissions made by the learned APP.

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. While the age of the victim/prosecutrix is stated to be 16 years and 08 months, yet the age of the applicant also is required to be taken into consideration i.e. around 20 years, at the time of filing of the FIR.

ii. The FIR and the other related papers, prima facie reflect the fact of a love affair.

iii. While it is true that the consent of the prosecutrix, who is less than

18 years, may not be consequential, yet, considering the age of the applicant, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

iv. The present application is filed after the charge-sheet having been filed by the I.O., and the applicant being in custody since 03.06.2025.

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. 11821024250373 of 2025 registered with Garbada Police Station, District Dahod, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 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] Mark presence before the concerned Police Station once a month for a period of six months.

[f] 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 intimation to the I.O.

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.