IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2931 of 2026 ==========================================================

MOHMAD SALMAN @AMAN MOHMAD HANIF ZAVERI 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. 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. 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.

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 allegation being that the applicant had manufactured and transacted the contraband drug - Mephedrone and whereas it would appear that the present applicant was not found in conscious possession of the contraband in question. The contraband in question was recovered from a bag and the same was found in the office where the applicant was also present, yet, it does not appear that the case of the prosecution is that present applicant was found in conscious possession.

ii. It would appear that the role attributed to the present applicant was being a peddler/trafficker and whereas this Court has also considered decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6508/2025 dated 11.08.2025, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the case of co-accused, who was stated to have taught the other accused as to how the contraband drug was to be manufactured and whereas perusing the said order it would appear that the Hon’ble Apex Court has demarcated the case of the accused, from the accused who were found in conscious possession and the accused not found in conscious possession.

iii. This Court has also considered order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (CRL) No. 16457 of 2025 dated 04.12.2025, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made distinction/demarcation as regards the accused being in conscious possession and not being conscious possession and whereas as noticed hereinabove, the case of the prosecution not being that the applicant was found in conscious possession.

iv. The present applicant not found in conscious possession of the contraband in question and the role attributed to the present applicant being of a peddler, would be, to this Court, stand at a very less serious level, than the role