પોક્સો કેસમાં ગુજરાત હાઇકોર્ટનો મહત્વપૂર્ણ ચુકાદો: સંમતિસભર સંબંધના મુદ્દે આરોપીને જામીન

પોક્સો કેસમાં ગુજરાત હાઇકોર્ટનો મહત્વપૂર્ણ ચુકાદો: સંમતિસભર સંબંધના મુદ્દે આરોપીને જામીન

અમદાવાદ: ગુજરાત હાઇકોર્ટ દ્વારા પોક્સો કાયદા સંબંધિત મહત્વપૂર્ણ ચુકાદો આપવામાં આવ્યો છે, જેમાં કોર્ટએ સંમતિસભર સંબંધ (consensual relationship)ને ધ્યાનમાં રાખીને આરોપીને નિયમિત જામીન (Regular Bail) મંજૂર કર્યા છે.

આ ચુકાદો માનનીય ન્યાયમૂર્તિ નિખિલ એસ. કરિએલ દ્વારા તા. 02/03/2026 ના રોજ આપવામાં આવ્યો હતો.

⚖️ કેસની વિગતો

આ કેસમાં અરજદાર તેજસભાઈ માધુભાઈ સકારિયા સામે

• ભારતીય નાગરિક સુરક્ષા સંહિતા, 2023 હેઠળ ગુનાઓ
• તેમજ POCSO Act હેઠળ ગંભીર આરોપો મૂકવામાં આવ્યા હતા.

પ્રોસિક્યુટ્રિક્સ (પીડિતા)ની ઉંમર આશરે 13 વર્ષ 11 મહિના હતી, જ્યારે અરજદારની ઉંમર 25 વર્ષ હતી.

📌 કોર્ટના મહત્વપૂર્ણ નિરીક્ષણો

1. ❤️ પ્રેમસંબંધ અને ભાગી જવું

કોર્ટએ નોંધ્યું કે:
👉 અરજદાર અને પીડિતા વચ્ચે પ્રેમસંબંધ હતો
👉 બંને લગભગ 1.5 મહિના સુધી સાથે ભાગી ગયા હતા

➡️ આથી કોર્ટએ માન્યું કે પ્રાથમિક રીતે કેસમાં
ધમકી, બળજબરી અથવા દબાણનો અભાવ છે

2. ⚠️ પોક્સો કાયદાનો દુરૂપયોગ મુદ્દો

કોર્ટએ State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh & Anr. કેસનો ઉલ્લેખ કરતાં જણાવ્યું કે:

👉 ઘણી વખત પોક્સો કાયદાનો ઉપયોગ
યુવાનો વચ્ચેના પ્રેમસંબંધમાં પણ થઈ જાય છે

3. ⏳ લાંબી કસ્ટડી અને ચાર્જશીટ

• અરજદાર 05/01/2025થી કસ્ટડીમાં હતો
• ચાર્જશીટ ફાઈલ થઈ ગઈ છે

➡️ તેથી કોર્ટએ કહ્યું કે વધુ સમય સુધી જેલમાં રાખવાનો હેતુ નથી

4. ⚖️ જામીનનો સિદ્ધાંત

કોર્ટએ Sanjay Chandra v. CBI કેસનો આધાર લઈને જણાવ્યું કે:

👉 “જામીન નિયમ છે અને જેલ અપવાદ”

🧾 કોર્ટનો આદેશ

કોર્ટએ અરજદારને નીચેની શરતો સાથે જામીન મંજૂર કર્યા:

• ₹10,000નો બોન્ડ અને એક જામીનદાર
• રાજ્ય બહાર જવા માટે કોર્ટની મંજૂરી જરૂરી
• દર મહિને પોલીસ સ્ટેશનમાં હાજરી આપવી
• પાસપોર્ટ સબમિટ કરવો
• સરનામું બદલતા પહેલાં જાણ કરવી

🧠 કાનૂની મહત્વ

આ ચુકાદો ખાસ કરીને મહત્વનો છે કારણ કે:

👉 પોક્સો કેસોમાં પણ કોર્ટ
વાસ્તવિક પરિસ્થિતિ અને સંબંધની પ્રકૃતિ ધ્યાનમાં લે છે

👉 “સંમતિસભર સંબંધ” (consensual relationship)
બેલ માટે મહત્વપૂર્ણ પરિબળ બની શકે

📌 નિષ્કર્ષ

👉 “દરેક પોક્સો કેસમાં બળજબરી હોય જ એવું માનવું યોગ્ય નથી – પરિસ્થિતિ મહત્વની છે.”

                          R/CR.MA/23655/2025                                         ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                                       CHARGESHEET) NO. 23655 of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                               TEJASBHAI MADHUBHAI SAKARIYA
                                                           Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     RULE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER, SERVICE
                     REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                     ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                         Date : 02/03/2026

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.V.K.Rana for learned advocate Mr.Maulik Soni appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B.Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 1.1. While the board indicates that the applicant has served a copy of notice to the concerned police station, the service report has not been filed. Learned APP Mr.Dabhi in this regard would tender a copy of the communication dated 18.02.2026 by the Police Inspector of the concerned police station intimating to the complainant that the case was scheduled on 19.02.2026. It would thus appear that the respondent no.2 had been intimated as regards the hearing NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23655/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined and whereas, the respondent no.2 has chosen not to remain present.

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. 11203030240948/2024 registered with Keshod Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1), 54, 249(b) of the BNS and Sections 4, 5(l), 6, 8, 12 of 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 on bail.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23655/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined

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 13 years 11 months, the age of the present applicant being 25 years could not be ignored.

ii. It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having a love affair, and had eloped together for a period of one and a half months, thus negating any allegations of threat, force or coercion involved and reflecting the 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 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23655/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined 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 05.01.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.

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. 11203030240948/2024 registered with Keshod Police Station, Junagadh, on executing a bond of NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23655/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and 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 till the deposition of the prosecutrix is recorded.

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, NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23655/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined 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.

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) Bhoomi