IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5961 of 2026 ==========================================================

URMILA D/O JASHVANTBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HITESH P PRAJAPATI(12819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TURPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 12/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kishan Prajapati 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. 11191033250853 of 2025 registered with Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) 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. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Allegation being that the accused had transacted in contraband –

cannabis, weighing around 10 Kg. 250 Grams.

ii. The fact of co-accused, who was also found along with the present applicant, having been released on regular bail by the learned Trial Court.

iii. It would be pertinent to mention here that the allegation being that the applicant and the co-accused, were travelling in an auto rickshaw when they had been apprehended and the contraband had been found in joint possession.

iv. There being two antecedents against the present applicant and whereas it is informed by learned Advocate that in one of the antecedents of similar nature, the applicant has been acquitted, and in the second offence, the contraband was the same – cannabis weighing around 15 Kgs.

v. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate and having perused the documents on record, while this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the applicant was involved, yet, considering that the contraband was of intermediate quantity in both the cases and since rigours of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act would not be applicable, and also having regard to the fact that the applicant is a middle aged lady, this Court in 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 Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the d