IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21853 of 2025 ==========================================================

MOHMAD HAMJA @ RIZVAN BADSHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

K T BELADIYA(9101) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 13/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.T. Beladiya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Maheta 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. 11210063250205 of 2025 registered with Singanpore-Dabholi Police Station, District Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act .

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the FIR originally mentions about one Alpesh, as an accused, from whose conscious possession the contraband material mephedrone weighing 78.77 grams had been recovered. Learned Advocate would submit that as such, after the investigation it has been revealed that the said accused was falsely implicated, more particularly other accused, having procured the contraband material and had planted the same in the car of the said accused. Learned Advocate would submit that from the affidavit of the IO before the learned Sessions Court, it is revealed that the role of the present applicant has come out upon the statement of other co-accused who would state that the contraband material had been procured from the present applicant. Learned Advocate would submit that as such, the contraband, even as per the said affidavit, procured from the present applicant was weighing around 35 grams which is less than the commercial quantity being 50 grams. Learned Advocate would submit that since the charge-sheet has been led and the only material against the present applicant being the fact that he had conversed with the co- accused, and considering the fact that the contraband allegedly procured from the applicant was below the commercial quantity, this Court may release the present applicant on regular bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent– State has strongly opposed this application, inter alia submitting that the co-accused, who had supplied the contraband to the accused, who had intended to frame the accused, who is originally named in the FIR, have named the present applicant and whereas even call detail records are available which would show that the applicant and the said accused had conversed with each other. Thus submitting learned APP would request this Court may not release the present applicant on regular bail.

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 fact that even after the charge-sheet, except for CDRs, there is no other material, based upon which the present applicant has been arraigned as accused.

ii. The fact that the CDRs while they would reflect that the applicant had a conversation with the other accused, yet, the fact of the conversion being with regard to the material in question may not be revealed.

iii. The fact of the present applicant having allegedly sold around 35 grams contraband which is less than the commercial quantity.

iv. The fact of charge-sheet having been laid and the fact of the ap