IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 2839 of 2026 ==========================================================

BHAVANSINH ABHESINH RATHOD & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VISHVAJITSINH D CHAUHAN(10160) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR TRUPESH KATHERIA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 26/02/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Mr. Kishan Prajapati appearing on behalf of the applicants 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 applicants have filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11209041251253 of 2025 registered with Prantij Police Station, Dist. Sabarkantha, for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GUJCTOC Act).

4. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicants are 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 applicants, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants 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) The fact that the FIR under the GUJCTOC Act and whereas it would prima facie appear to this Court that there is no material against the present applicant, which would prima facie reveal that the present applicant was part of any organised gang.

(ii) The allegation being that the gang in question i.e.

one so called Nikubha gang, was indulging into oranised crime by illegally mining sand from the riverbed of Sabarmati river.

(iii) The allegation against the present applicant is of being accused in three different FIRs and whereas it would appear that the first FIR has nothing to do with the allegation under GUJCTOC Act, more particularly being personal in nature, where the applicant is alleged to have assaulted a person with whom sister of co-accused had eloped. The co- accused and his family members i.e. total of 36 accused, including applicant, of which more than half were women of his family, had assaulted a person with whom his sister had eloped.

(iv) The second and the third FIRs being registered against the present applicant on the very day, more particularly one FIR being where the applicant is alleged to have obstructed the passage of the some dumpers through a kachha road, passing adjacent to his village and the second also being with regard to the same transaction where some Government officials and private individuals having been obstructed, while travelling on the kachha road. It would be pertinent to mention that the applicant has been enlarged on regular bail in all substantive offences.

(v) Considering the above, since it prima facie appears to this Court that there is nothing, which connects the present applicant to the organised crime except the fact that in later two FIRs, the main accused of the GUJCTOC FIR is also one of the accused, to this Cou