IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4511 of 2026 ========================================================

SHAKIL MOHAMMED BASIR MOHAMMED RANGREJ Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR SALIM M SAIYED(5172) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salim Saiyed appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya 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.III - 02/2025 registered with A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

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. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) While it appears that the offence concerned is very serious, where 107 Kgs. alprazolam had been found from a factory premises and later on, upon raid of godown, tramazol weighing around 500 Kgs. had been seized.

(ii) The fact of the applicant being named as one of the purchasers, in a statement by one Ajay Jain, who was the person purchasing the contraband from the accused who has manufactured it .

(iii) The allegation being that the present applicant along with one Kaluram Patidar, had purchased around 11 kilograms of the contraband alprazolam from the co-accused.

(iv) While there is money trail with regard to the co-accused Kaluram Patidar having sent money to the co-accused Ajay Jain, insofar as the applicant is concerned, except the statement of the co- accused, there does not appear to be any material which would link the present applicant to the principal offence.

(v) While as noticed hereinabove, the offence is very serious, yet considering the limited role attributed to the present applicant more particularly there being no material against the present applicant, which could imply his role in the offence in question.

(vi) Since it appears that the requirements under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act are fulfilled, more particularly since the applicant does not have any antecedents of any offence whatsoever including an offence under NDPS Act, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

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

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First In