Bail Granted to Applicant in State v. [Respondent] Case

In a significant development, the Gujarat High Court has granted bail to the applicant in the case of State v. [Respondent]. The Court considered various factors before arriving at this decision, including the nature of the allegations in the FIR and the role played by the applicant. This decision comes after the victim’s deposition was recorded, revealing crucial information for the case. Read on to know more about the Court’s ruling.


  • Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.
  • Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with C.R.No.11208002230490 of 2023.
  • Offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • Advocate for the applicant submits that applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
  • Applicant arrested on 21.07.2023.


  • The applicant may be enlarged on bail considering the factual aspects.
  • The deposition of the victim girl, recorded by the Trial Court, shows that she did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
  • Even the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution.
  • Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties did not press for further reasoned order.
  • The respondent has opposed the grant of regular bail citing the nature and gravity of the offense.


  • The applicant has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
  • This is a successive bail application after investigation has concluded.
  • The previous application was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after the victim’s deposition was recorded.
  • The victim’s deposition has now been recorded.
  • The court has considered the allegations against the applicant and the role played by the applicant in the case.
  • The Court considered the law laid down in the cases of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
  • Without discussing the evidence in detail, the Court prima facie believes that the applicant should be granted regular bail based on the nature of the allegations in the FIR.
  • The application for regular bail is allowed, and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
  • The bail is granted subject to certain conditions including not misusing the liberty, not acting against the interest of the prosecution, surrendering passport if any, not leaving the state without permission, marking presence regularly at the police station, and informing the authorities of any change of residence.
  • The release of the applicant will only take place if he is not required in connection with any other offense at the time.


  • Applicant has been granted bail without being influenced by preliminary observations made by the Court at the time of granting bail.
  • The trial court has the authority to amend, modify, or relax the conditions of bail as needed.
  • The applicant has been in jail since a particular date mentioned.
  • The bail bond should be submitted to the lower court with jurisdiction over the case.
  • If any conditions of bail are breached, the Sessions Judge can issue a warrant or take appropriate action.
  • The rule is now absolute and the application has been allowed.
  • The investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed.
  • Direct service is permitted in this case.


Case Number: R/CR.MA/8803/2024

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *