IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4160 of 2026 ==========================================================

MATINMIYA AKA KHALU MEHBUBMIYA AKA KHALU SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AKSHAY V MATANI(11363) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RAJ H JOBANPUTRA(10779) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 18/02/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Akshay Matani appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr Niraj Sharma 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. 11995001250009 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C) 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. The offence being very serious i.e. the accused found in conscious possession of Mephedrone weighing around 55.030 grams that is beyond the commercial quantity, whereas it would appear that the recovery was from two different persons that is the quantity of 31.7 grams being recovered from the present applicant, whereas 23 grams having been recovered from the co-accused.

ii. Investigation revealing that the present applicant had purchased the material in question and whereas it would appear that while learned advocate would try and refer to the order of the co-accused Shahnawazkhan @ Anda who had been released by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 yet, it would appear that the benefit of parity would not inure upon the present applicant.

iii.It is observed in this regard that the investigation has revealed that while the applicant had purchased the contraband in question, he had given quantity of 23 grams to the co-accused and had retained the remaining with himself. It also appears that vide order dated 12.01.2026, while releasing the co-accused, this Court had noted that the charge-sheet papers clearly refer to the entire contraband having been procured by co-accused i.e. the present applicant and whereas the co-accused i.e. the present applicant having given s quantity of around 23 grams to the applicant of the earlier order. It also appears that the co-accused was owner and driver of the rickshaw in which both the said accused and the present applicant were travelling and whereas this Court had also noted that the co-accused was a relative as well as the friend of the applicant.

iv. This Court had also noted that the co-accused i.e. the p