IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 26134 of 2025 ==========================================================

SANKET SHAILESHBHAI ASLALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 13/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with learned Advocate Mr. Kishan H. Daiya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma 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. 11210015200084 of 2020 registered with D.C.B Police Station, Surat 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 not inclined to consider this application for the following reasons.

(i) Allegation against the applicant being that the applicant had involved in the activity of manufacturing and dealing with the contraband mephedrone.

(ii) The fact of the applicant found in conscious possession of the contraband in question which is to the tune of 304.98 Grams.

(iii) While learned Advocate Mr. Bharda would emphasize on orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of co-accused Pragnesh Pravinbhai Thummar in the very set of FIRs, which are filed on the same day, stating that the said accused was alleged to have taught the other accused as to how the contraband drug mephedrone was to be prepared, yet, to this Court it would appear that the applicant is not entitled to benefit of parity as arising from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

(iv) It would appear that the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6508/2025 vide order dated 11.08.2025, while allowing the case of co- accused has very clearly noted at Paragraph No. 5 “… admittedly there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the appellant. The recovery of contraband drugs is from other co-accused who have made confessional disclosures that they were taught by the appellant as to how those drugs were to be prepared.” The Hon’ble Apex Court having clearly demarcated the role of the accused therein from the role of accused who was found in conscious possession and whereas to this Court it would appear that the present applicant being the accused found in conscious possession, the benefit of the said order would not enure in favour of the present applicant.

(v) This Court has also perused of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (CRL) No. 16457/2025 dated 04.12.2025, where also the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the case of a co-accused at Paragraph No.4 inter alia