Sarvadi Amansha @ Rafiqsha Jusabsha vs State Of Gujarat

Umesh A. Trivedi, J

This application is filed praying for cancellation of a bail granted to the Respondent No.2 – accused vide an order dated 9.2.2023 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Criminal Misc. Application No.51 of 2023, on the ground that despite the age of the victim being 14 years and 8 months, the learned Judge has granted bail to the Respondent No.2-accused holding in para-5 that he is in jail for around 10 days by now and shown to have a residence within the jurisdiction of a Court and therefore, he is not likely to abscond. Mr.Aamir S. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that since the victim was minor and at present, she is with her parents, bail should not have been granted to Respondent No.2-accused as consent of the victim is inconsequential.

Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and going through the impugned order as also the allegations levelled in the FIR, it appears that victim and Respondent No.2-original accused were in relationship since long and they eloped in the month of December, 2022 and she got married with Respondent No.2- accused and out of a wedlock, they were blessed with the child of 3 months, as mentioned in the order.

Considering the order passed by this Court in a Habeas Corpus petition, more particularly in para-4.1 thereof, dated 20.2.2023 i.e. subsequent to the passing of an order of a bail, it is clear that victim had refused to go with the mother at her parental home. Not only that, she would opt to stay with Respondent No.5 therein who is none other than Respondent No.2 herein, as submitted by learned advocate for the applicant. However, the submission that as on date the victim is with her parents is inconsequential, that too, for the purpose of cancellation of a bail, which is already granted by the Competent Court considering the aforesaid material and therefore, I see no reason to entertain with the same. Hence, this application is rejected.