Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 481 (GUJ)

Jaydev Govindbhai Metaliya v. State of Gujarat

2022-04-07

RAJENDRA M.SAREEN

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I-11211031210297 of 2021 registered with Limdi Police Station, District: Surendranagar for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(j)(n) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,a s well as Sections 3(A), 4 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and the investigation is also over. The victim was 17 years and 6 months old. There was a love affair between the applicant and the victim as per the statement of the girl before the Police and the statement before the Medical Officer also. The family of victim came to know about the love affair and therefore, engagement was done of the victim. The victim voluntarily ran away with the applicant. There was consensus relationship between the applicant and the victim. The applicant is agriculturist and he is the only earning member and responsible for his family. He is in judicial custody since 28th December, 2021. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Mr. Kodekar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the bail application and submitted that the victim was minor at the time of offence. Both, applicant and the victim are resident of same village and therefore, if the applicant is released there are chances of applicant misusing the liberty. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, Mr. Kodekar, learned APP has prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant. 4. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order. 5. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order. 5. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. This Court has considered the following aspects: (i) The applicant is in jail since 28th December, 2021; (ii) Investigation is over and charge sheet is filed; (iii) The applicant is local resident, not likely to flee away; (iv) The applicant is 23 years young boy and there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim, admitted by the victim before the Police and the Medical Officer; (v) There are no antecedents to the present applicant. 8. In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I-11211031210297 of 2021 registered with Limdi Police Station, District: Surendranagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant 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 Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station once between 1st and 5th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months.; [f] furnish latest and permanent address of residence to the Investigating Officer 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. 9. 9. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, 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 Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authority by Fax or Email forthwith. Direct service is permitted.