Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
KRUSHNAKUMAR S/O MALARAM JAT (CHAUDHARY) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL – AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 23699 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Dagli, Dhruv H Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Trupesh Kathiriya
Grant of regular bail after the filing of a charge-sheet, where the risk of absconding by a non-resident can be mitigated by imposing suitable conditions and considering the applicant's age and nature of antecedents.
Headnote:The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11205048250206 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(c), 116B, 81, 83, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The case involved the attempted transport of liquor worth approximately Rs. 1.53 Crores into Gujarat, where the applicant was identified as the owner and driver of the truck. The court noted that the charge-sheet had been filed in September 2025 and the applicant is a young person with a non-similar antecedent from 2018. The primary issue was whether the applicant, being a non-resident of Gujarat and involved in a high-value liquor smuggling attempt, should be granted regular bail after the filing of the charge-sheet. The court reasoned that since the charge-sheet was already filed, continued detention served no useful purpose, and the risk of the applicant absconding could be mitigated by imposing suitable conditions, referencing the principles established in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The application is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and application for regular bail under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of bail versus the risk of absconding. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluation of the applicant's profile, charge-sheet status, and judicial precedents for bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. grant of bail subject to specific conditions to ensure trial attendance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for learned Advocate Mr.Dhruv Chaudhary on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. At the outset learned Advocate Mr. Dagli would point out that though charge-sheet had been filed in the month of September 2025 and whereas the Sessions Court had been approached after the charge-sheet was filed, yet, inadvertently the present application has been preferred as if it was filed before charge-sheet. Learned Advocate would submit that this Court may not take cognizance of being inadvertent error.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
4. The present applicant who has been arraigned as accused has preferred 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. 11205048250206 of 2025 registered with Koday Police Station, District: Kachchh West-Bhuj for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(c), 116B, 81,83 and 98 (2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
5. 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.
6. 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. Learned APP would submit that the applicant is not resident of the State of Gujarat and hence there is apprehension that the applicant may abscond. Thus submitting learned APP would submit that this Court may not consider releasing the applicant on regular bail.
7. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.
8. This Court has also considered the following aspects:
(i) The fact of the offence being one where liquor worth around Rs. 1.53 Crores attempted to be brought to the State of Gujarat.
(ii) While the present applicant is stated to be both owner and driver of the truck in question, yet, it would also appear that the applicant had been arrested on 10.07.2025 and charge-sheet had been laid by the investigating officer in the month of September 2025.
(iii) This Court has also noted that the present applicant is young person aged around 24 years with one antecedent of the year 2018, which is also not similar in nature.
(iv) apprehension raised by the learned APP that accused not being permanent resident of State of Gujarat would abscond upon being granted regular bail could be allayed by imposing suitable condition.
