IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6103 of 2026 ==========================================================

MOHAMMAD SANAWAR @ PARTY MOHAMMAD USMAN SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, 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.A.S. Timbalia on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an 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. 11995001250013 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of the allegation levelled against, 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 submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. The present application is vehemently objected to by learned APP on behalf of respondent- State by submitting that looking to the nature of offence as coming out from the FIR, 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 for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet papers as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court. 7. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The allegation in the FIR being very serious, inasmuch as the accused are stated to have transacted in contraband Mephedrone weighing around 75 grams.

(ii) The allegation against the present applicant being that he had sold the contraband to the accused, who were found in conscious possession.

(iii) The fact of the charge-sheet not revealing any particular quantity, which had been sold by the present applicant.

(iv) The fact of the applicant being named as a co-accused on the basis of statement of the co-accused on the basis of CDRs.

(v) The fact of the charge-sheet having been laid and the statement of the co-accused obviously not forming part of the charge-sheet, and the CDRs to this Court reflecting the fact of the parties having conversed with each-other and contents of the conversation not being known.

(vi) The fact of the applicant stated to have one antecedent of being involved in a similar offence i.e. under the NDPS Act and whereas it is informed that vide a judgment dated November, 2023, the applicant is acquitted and whereas as of now there is no appeal which has been preferred.

(vii) Considering the limited nature of materials against the present applicant and whereas considering that the applicant has been acquitted in the NDPS case which was pending against him.

(viii) To this Court while the contraband which has been seized is well above the commercial quantity for the contraband in question, yet to this Court it would appear that the rigours under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act w