LILESHBHAI @ NILESHBHAI TERSINGBHAI BHURIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/3393/2026                                ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                  CHARGESHEET) NO. 3393 of 2026

==========================================================
             LILESHBHAI @ NILESHBHAI TERSINGBHAI BHURIYA
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI(5950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KAVITA V DAVE(6573) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR I SALVI(13796) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI ADDl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.
1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                              Date : 18/03/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


1.      Heard learned advocate Mr. Japan Dave for learned advocate Mr.
Nirav C. Sanghavi appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State. While the name of the learned advocate Mr. Jigar Salvi in the cause
list, it is informed that learned advocate Mr. Salvi has not been instructed to
appear on behalf of the respondent No.2.           It also appears that the
complainant has been served and has not engaged any advocate as yet.


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



3.      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.11821025251214 of


                                   Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.MA/3393/2026                                ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




2025 registered with Katwara Police Station, Dist. Dahod, for the offence
punishable under Sections 137(2), 64, 64(2)(M), 87 of BNS and Section 5(L)
and 6 of the POCSO Act.



4.      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 on6541 bail.



5.      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.



6.      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 prosecutrix is stated to be around 16 years, the
     age of the present applicant being 20 years could not be ignored.
     ii. It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having a
     love affair and had eloped for a period of one month, thus negating any
     allegations of threat, force or coercion involved and reflecting the


                                    Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.MA/3393/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




     consensual nature of the relationship.
     iii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
     Anurudh & Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 47 having noted the fact of
     the POCSO Act being misused even when the case is one of a
     romantic / consensual relationship between adolescents or one where
     the prosecutrix / victim is adolescent and where the age gap between the
     parties is not substantial.
     iv. The fact of the present applicant being in custody since 04.11.2025
     and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.
     v. Apprehension of the learned APP that the applicant not being
     resident of the State of Gujarat, if released, may abscond, could be
     allayed by imposing suitable conditions.


        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.


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


8.      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..11821025251214 of 2025 registered with Katwara Police Station, Dist.
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

                                    Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.MA/3393/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




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 intimation to the I.O.;

      [g] mark presence once a month before the concerned police station for
      a period of three months.


9.       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.



10.      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.



11.      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.


                                      Page 4 of 5
       R/CR.MA/3393/2026                                                              ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




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




                                                                                        (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: YAGNESH NARENDRABHAI VYAS(HC00207), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/03/2026 12:16:55




                                                       Page 5 of 5