ORDER : P.M. Raval, J. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Ambrish V. Jani, upon instructions, states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 2 herein – the original complainant, and that he shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry. The Registry is directed to accept his Vakalatnama. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni for the applicant. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest, pursuant to the FIR being C.R. No. 11195019260104 of 2026 lodged before Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3), 74, and 75(2) of the BNS, as well as under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. The facts of the prosecution, in nutshell, as stated in the FIR, are to the effect that when the prosecutrix was residing at Village Ajapur, Kant, the present applicant, who used to reside behind her residence and belonged to the same community, used to visit their house frequently. Thus, she knew the applicant–accused since childhood. 4. It is further contended that approximately eight years prior to the lodging of the complaint, the father of the present applicant, along with his family, shifted to Gowardhan Park Society at Deesa. However, the accused used to frequently visit the residence of the prosecutrix on various occasions and festivals. The prosecutrix considered him as a brother and also used to tie Rakhi to him. 5. It is further alleged that whenever she was alone at the residence, the accused used to take undue advantage of the situation and used to physically abuse her. When the complainant was studying in Standard 10 in the year 2018, the accused allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her when she was alone at home and also took photographs on his mobile phone. 6. Thereafter, on several occasions, he allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that he would make those photographs viral, and on such threats, he continued to rape her repeatedly. It is further alleged that the accused used to call the victim from mobile numbers 6351047706 and 9924390867, and used to take her to various places in Deesa and commit sexual act upon her despite her resistance. 7. It is further alleged that the accused used to call the victim from mobile numbers 6351047706 and 9924390867, and used to take her to various places in Deesa and commit sexual act upon her despite her resistance. 7. It is further alleged that approximately seven months prior to the lodging of the FIR, the prosecutrix came to know that the accused had also maintained a physical relationship with her elder sister. Upon gaining such knowledge, the prosecutrix informed her father that the accused was not a reliable person, and thereafter the accused stopped visiting their residence. 8. However, on 19.01.2026, the elder sister was also taken away from the residence. Thereafter, she surrendered herself alone at the Police Station on 25.01.2026, and despite the family members requesting her to return home, she refused and is presently residing at the Mahila Kendra. 8.1 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be lodged. Pursuant thereto, the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 111 of 2026 before the Special POCSO Court at Deesa for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by judgment and order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa. 9. The present applicant has therefore approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, mainly on the following grounds: (a) That the present FIR has been lodged with a clear ulterior motive, arising out of personal animosity and frustration due to the breakdown of the relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the alleged incidents are stated to have taken place 8 years prior to the lodging of the FIR, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed. (b) That even from a plain reading of the entire FIR, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking, and the allegations are vague, delayed, and unsubstantiated, which do not inspire confidence and appear inherently improbable. (c) That the FIR refers to incidents which allegedly occurred 7–8 years prior to its lodging, yet no grievance or complaint was raised during this prolonged period, which creates serious doubts regarding the veracity and motive behind lodging the present FIR. (c) That the FIR refers to incidents which allegedly occurred 7–8 years prior to its lodging, yet no grievance or complaint was raised during this prolonged period, which creates serious doubts regarding the veracity and motive behind lodging the present FIR. (d) That the relationship between the applicant and the complainant was consensual, and the applicant did not commit any act of force, coercion, or non-consensual sexual conduct. Therefore, the lodging of the present FIR amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, filed only with a view to pressurize the applicant, and therefore the present anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed. 10. Learned Advocate further submits that, as per the affidavit filed by the Police Inspector, Deesa, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge while opposing the anticipatory bail application, the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that there is no evidence regarding the presence of the accused with the prosecutrix at Hotel Prime, Topping Down, and Hawai Pillar during the period from 2018 to 2025, nor is there any CCTV footage available. 11. Learned Advocate further contends that the applicant was also allegedly having a love affair with the elder sister of the prosecutrix, as stated by the Police Inspector in the affidavit. It is further argued that the statement of the elder sister reflects that the present applicant visited their residence only in the year 2022, and therefore the allegations in the FIR that the accused had forcefully maintained a physical relationship since 2018 stand falsified. 12. It is further argued that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, the age of the victim, as reflected from the statement of the elder sister of the prosecutrix, indicates that she was a major and not a minor, and therefore the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. 13. Learned Advocate further submits that as per the second affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer on 16.02.2026 before the Sessions Court, the call detail records for the last one year reflect 205 incoming calls and SMS and 180 outgoing calls and SMS, which indicates that the applicant was in constant contact with the complainant and the prosecutrix. 14. 13. Learned Advocate further submits that as per the second affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer on 16.02.2026 before the Sessions Court, the call detail records for the last one year reflect 205 incoming calls and SMS and 180 outgoing calls and SMS, which indicates that the applicant was in constant contact with the complainant and the prosecutrix. 14. It is further argued that the elder sister of the prosecutrix is not residing with her family members and is residing at Deesa, and despite this, the applicant remained in constant communication with the complainant and the prosecutrix, thereby suggesting that the relationship between them was consensual. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be allowed. 15. Learned Advocate further relied upon the judgment in the case of Kunal Chatterjee Versus State of West Bengal , reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 76539 , more particularly paragraphs 7 and 9 , which held as under: 7. “We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the definition of Rape and would arguge that the consent given by the minor is no consent and it would still be a rape. In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the proscutrix was a minor, there is abolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. She also categorically states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant.” 8. “Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused.” 16. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah submits that the FIR itself discloses serious cognizable offences. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah submits that the FIR itself discloses serious cognizable offences. He further submits that the applicant was also in a relationship with the elder sister of the prosecutrix, and therefore a strong prima facie case is made out. It is argued that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in order to elicit the true factual aspects with regard to the alleged crime, particularly to ascertain whether the offences were committed when the prosecutrix was a minor. 17. Learned APP further submits that the Call Detail Records (CDR) indicate that the applicant was in constant contact with the prosecutrix during the last one year, which supports the allegations made in the FIR. He therefore argues that the present case is not a case of a mere love affair, but rather a case of exploitation of two sisters by the applicant, and hence the present application deserves to be rejected. 18. Learned APP further submits that the accused had also taken indecent photographs of the victim, and on the basis of such photographs he was sexually exploiting the prosecutrix. Therefore, the recovery of such photographs from the mobile phone of the applicant is also necessary, and hence anticipatory bail may not be granted to the applicant. 19. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 20. This Court has gone through the FIR as well as the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which has been taken on record. This Court has also heard learned advocate Mr. Ambrish V. Jani appearing for Respondent No. 2 – the original complainant. 21. Though the fact remains that the allegations pertain to the period from 2018 to 2025, and more particularly from 01.03.2018 till 30.04.2025, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 28.01.2026, such delay by itself cannot be considered as a ground for grant of anticipatory bail, especially when the FIR itself discloses allegations that the accused had taken indecent photographs of the prosecutrix and on the basis of such photographs sexually exploited her. 22. Coupled with the aforestated facts the applicant was in constant contact with the prosecutrix, the contention regarding the alleged love affair can only be tested during the course of trial. Under such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, particularly for the purpose of recovering the alleged indecent photographs. 22. Coupled with the aforestated facts the applicant was in constant contact with the prosecutrix, the contention regarding the alleged love affair can only be tested during the course of trial. Under such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, particularly for the purpose of recovering the alleged indecent photographs. In view of the same, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 23. This Court does not find that the present case falls within the four corners of the law laid down in the case of Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal , reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 76539 , and therefore this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application is rejected. 24. In the said judgment, the prosecutrix had a love affair and consensual sexual relationship with the accused while she was a minor, and the accused had allegedly promised to marry her but later backed out. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had quashed the complaint. 25. However, it is required to be noted that the parameters for quashing of proceedings and the parameters to be considered while granting anticipatory bail stand on different footing. Therefore, under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary powers in favour of the applicant Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and further considering that the allegations do not appear to have been made merely with the object of humiliating the applicant, this Court has carefully evaluated the entire material placed on record. Upon such evaluation, it cannot be said that the detention of the present applicant is unjustified. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present matter does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 25. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected at the threshold.