SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2941 of 2025 ==========================================================
NILESH @ KALIYO ASHOKBHAI VASTIRAM OD (MARWADI)
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAYDEEP V DESAI(9970) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 12/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the Applicant to the offence, emphasizing the need for fair trial considerations.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for Regular Bail - The Applicant sought bail in connection with an FIR for possession of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate. The court considered the Applicant's reputation, lack of material evidence linking him to the offence, and the completion of the investigation. (Paras 1, 5, 6)

(B) Bail Considerations - The court emphasized three factors: prima facie case, availability of the accused at trial, and risk of tampering with witnesses. The Applicant was deemed unlikely to flee and had been in custody since 20.11.2024. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant was accused of supplying cough syrup to a co-accused found in possession of 58 bottles. The prosecution lacked substantial evidence against the Applicant.

Findings of Court:
The Application for bail was allowed, with conditions imposed to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against the Applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of material evidence connecting the Applicant to the offence warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. 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. 11191012240782 of 2024 registered with Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad City.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the call details of the telephone calls having taken place between the present Applicant and teh other co-accused on whose possession the bottles of cough syruph containing Codeine Phosphate were found. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. As per the case of the prosecution, the othr co-accused was found in possession of 58 Bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate and out of that 58 Bottles, 40 Bottles had been allegedly supplied to him by the present Applicant. There is no other material connecting the present Applicant with the offence in question. Considering this aspect, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 20.11.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.

(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.

(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top