IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 22966 of 2025 ==========================================================

NIKHIL PRABHURAM MASURIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR P S DATTA(11324) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ J SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 11/11/2025 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.S. Datta appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

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.

11993005250313/2025 registered with Adesar Police Station, Kachch east-Gandhidham for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 137(2), 309(4), 353(3), 296, 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023 as well as Section 135 of G.P. Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr. P.S. Datta for the applicant would submit that the issue arose on account of family dispute more particularly, the sister of the applicant being engaged in the family of the complainant and vise versa and due to some reason the same got broken of which had resulted in the unfortunate incident. Learned advocate would submit that as such the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the other accused more particularly, the present applicant was not involved from the first stage i.e. he was not part of the group which had abducted the complainant/victim and whereas, the applicant had joined later on and while the allegation is that the applicant had assaulted the complainant, the later allegation of having videographed the incident is not co-relatable to the present applicant. Learned advocate would submit that the offence is being triable by a Magistrate, and there being no antecedents against the present applicant this Court may consider for grant of regular bail at this stage.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail. Learned APP would submit that the present applicant was part of the conspiracy, whereby the other accused had abducted the complainant and had assaulted him. Learned APP would submit that while the present applicant as well as his brother have been arrested, the other accused are still at large, thus learned APP would further submit that the applicant and the complainant residing in the same Taluka there might be a law and order situation if, the applicant is released. The apprehension of learned APP could be allayed by imposing suitable conditions

6. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. the issue arising from family dispute more particularly, upon an engagement of sister inter-se, with the family of the applicant and the complainant being broken;

ii. the fact of the present applicant not being part of the group which had abducted the complainant;

iii. the fact of the offence is being triable by a Magistrate;

iv. the fact that there being no other antecedents against the present applicant;

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.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegatio