SOYEB IBRAHIMBHAI CHANDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Vatsal D. Ruparel waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11203038240442 of 2024 registered with Mangrole Police Station, District Junagadh for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(3), 376(2)(N), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 5(l), 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "POCSO Act").

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and has been arraigned only because the applicant happens to be the uncle of accused No.1 and the allegation of rape and under the POCSO Act are against accused No.1. Further, the FIR is filed belatedly after a delay of six months as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the applicant's side against the family members of the victim. There is no any form of sexually aggravated penetrative assault committed by the present applicant punishable either under the POCSO Act or under the IPC. The only role attributed to the present applicant in the second part of FIR is that the applicant administered threat to the victim to close her way to school if she do not remain silent about the sexual assault done by accused No.1. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.