IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4556 of 2026 ========================================================

BHANIYABHAI @BHIKHABHAI NATUBHAI RATHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 24/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Matafer Pande on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of 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. 11214046251579/2025 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 6(a), 8(1), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 read with Sections 11(1)(D), 11(1)(E), 11(1)(F) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 54 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita

2023.

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 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 the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dabhi 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, 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) The allegation being that the applicant had sold the cow and calves, which were apprehended while being transported by the other co-accused for slaughter.

(ii) Prima facie it may not appear that the cow and calves were being sent for slaughter more particularly it would appear that the calves aged one and half year and eight months, being transported along with fully matured cows for being sold to dairy farmer, in a different place.

(iii) The fact of the applicant not having any antecedents and whereas the allegation of the said animals being sent for slaughter, coming out from the statement of the co-accused.

(iv) The fact of the applicant being in custody since 23.11.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.

7. 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

8. 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 discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11214046251579/2025 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misus