IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.

2599 of 2025 ==========================================================

OVESH @ HOLO UMARBHAI RAHIM MADHIYA & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DV ACHARYA(5616) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR LB DABHI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 28/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Bhavna Acharya appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.P.V. Patadiya for the respondent No.2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the appellants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I- 11217040250185 of 2025 registered with Vagdod Police Station, District: Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 75(2), 76, 296(b), 351(3), 324(2), 310(2) & 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 135 of G.P. Act and under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(za) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants would submit that considering the role attributed to the appellants, and nature of the allegation levelled, the appellants 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 appellants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the appellants is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

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 appellants as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the fact that the appellants 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 fact of the incident being a free fight between members of communities, more particularly with regard to the playing of DJ (Music Party);

ii. It also appears that while most of the accused of the present FIR have been released by learned Sessions Court as well as this Court, and whereas the case of the present appellants being that since some recovery has been effected from them, therefore, they are treated differently by the learned Sessions Judge;

iii. while it would appear that the Investigating Officer has stated that some gold ornaments have been recovered from the present appellants, yet, to this court, it would appear that since the allegation is of a free fight between two communities, and the appellants being in custody since 16.05.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the I.O., this Court should exercise its discretion at this stage;

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 allegations made against i