IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21106 of 2025 ==========================================================

VINITBHAI MANSUKHBHAI MANGROLIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 18/11/2025 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rushabh R. Shah on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma on behalf of respondent – State.

2. By way of this application, the applicant who has been arraigned as an accused in connection with C.R. No. III- 02/2025 registered with A.T.S. Police Station for the offences under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act and seeks to be released on regular bail more particularly, submitting that the applicant having been arrested on the 23.06.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the I.O., and the applicant not having any antecedent, this Court may consider releasing him.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the applicant had not been named in the charge-sheet, he came to be subsequently arrested on a statement of co-accused No. 1 – Ranjeet Dhabi. Learned advocate would submit that while, the FIR originally states as regards seizure of 107 kgs of alprazolam, later on, upon the details revealed by the co-accused, a godown had been raided and tramazol, weighing around 500 kgs had been seized from that place. Learned advocate would submit that the allegation against the present applicant being based upon the statement of the co-accused that he had at the behest of the co-accused manufactured 3000 kgs of tramazol and sold it to the said accused Ranjeet Dhabi and whereas, 500 kgs of the said lot, had been seized from the godown of the said accused.

Learned advocate would submit that while the I.O. has relied upon certain money trails, all the money trails, are prior to a period before which the co-accused Ranjeet Dhabi had taken the premises on rent. Learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court to statement of the owner of the godown as well as a rent agreement and based upon the same, learned advocate would submit that the premises in question was taken on rent by the co-accused on 09.09.2024 and whereas, all the transactions, as regards the payment of money by the co-accused to the applicant, as relied upon by the I.O. is prior to the said date. Learned advocate would submit that as such, even there was a panchnama at the factory premises of the present applicant and whereas, no contraband substance had been found from the said factory. Learned advocate would submit that even at the stage of seizure of the 500 kgs of tramazol, a panchnama had been drawn and whereas, the accused Ranjeet Dhabi, even during the stage of panchnama had not named the present applicant. Learned advocate would submit that the charge-sheet not revealing a prima facie offence being made out against the present applicant and the applicant having no antecedents, this Court may consider and release the present applicant on regular bail.

4. The present application is vehemently objected by learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma on behalf of respondent – State. Learned APP would submit that as such, for the purpose of investigation, and laying the charge-sheet, the I.O. has found money trail between the accused upon whose, statement the present applicant had been arrested and the applicant. Learned APP would submit that between the period of October 2023 and March 2024, an amount of approximately Rs. 72,00,000/- had been transferred to the present applicant. Learned APP would submit that the transfer of the money had been through a Aagadiya Firm and whereas, the statement of an employee of the Aagadiya Firm has already been reco