IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3724 of 2026 ==========================================================

DANISHKHAN @ D.K. @DOLLAR MOHSINKHAN PATHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. 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. III - 01 of 2025 registered with A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, this Court is disinclined to consider this application for the following reasons.

(i) The offence being very serious inasmuch as, the contraband mephedrone weighing around 55 Grams that is commercial quantity being recovered from the accused No.1, whereas the role attributed to the present applicant is of being the person at whose behest the contraband mephedrone was ultimately supplied by the co-accused to the person who was found in conscious possession.

(ii) While learned Advocate for the applicant would refer to an order of this Court dated 16.12.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24978 of 2025 seeking to release the present applicant on the ground of parity, it would appear that on the very day, the applicant had withdrawn an earlier application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 26386 of 2025 before this Court, and the present is a successive bail application. Learned Advocate would submit that the role attributed to the present applicant and the material found against the present applicant during the course of investigation being similar to that of the said co-accused whom this Court had released on bail, the consideration of parity of the said order should enure upon the present applicant. To this Court it would appear that while the allegation against the present applicant being that he has asked co- accused Tausif to call co-accused Vasim to supply the material to co- accused Farhanali, from whose conscious possession the material had been caught and whereas it would appear in this regard as far as co- accused Tausif, whom this Court had released on regular bail, was concerned, the only material was a single phone call on Whatsapp between the said accused and the accused from whose conscious possession the contraband substance had been recovered and that too, a month prior to the said accused bei