IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 25386 of 2025 ==========================================================

MAHAMADHUSHEN HASAMBHAI AVEDIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.

1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Jay Mehta 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. 11213026250256/2025 registered with Kotda Sangani Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S.

Act, 1985.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant 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 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.

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

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. While the offence alleged is very serious i.e. commercial quantity of a prohibited substance i.e. Mephedrone weighing around 92.160 milligrams, yet, it would appear that the prohibited substance was not found in the conscious possession of the applicant.

ii. The role attributed to the present applicant being of the proposed receiver and whereas, the material relied upon even after charge-sheet being the statement of co-accused, which is obviously not forming part of the charge-sheet, and CDRs which according to this Court, would be reflective of the fact that the present applicant and the co- accused had conversed with each other and may not be reflective of the fact that the discussion was with regard to the prohibited substance in question.

iii.Furthermore, insofar as the confession is concerned, it would also appear that the present applicant had also confessed to the investigating officer as regards the present applicant using the substance in question regularly and whereas, even if the present applicant is shown as a proposed purchaser, it would prima facie appear that the present applicant may have been the end user and not the person having purchased it for the retail sale.

iv. The fact of the applicant not having any antecedents and being in custody since 30.08.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the investigating officer.

v. Considering the above observations, the twin requirements of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) being fulfilled.

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 Inv