IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3676 of 2026 ==========================================================

THAKOR MUKESHJI CHEHRAJI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KAVAN K PATEL(11303) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) 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 : 13/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kavan K. Patel 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. I-176/2018 registered with Patan City B- Division Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 397, 114 of the IPC.

3.1. The applicant having been arraigned as an accused in connection with the aforementioned FIR, had been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 29.11.2018 by the learned Sessions Court, Patan in Cr.M.A. No.933/2018 and whereas, since the applicant did not remain present upon the trial being commenced, learned Sessions Court has issued non- bailable warrant against the present applicant, apprehending which the applicant has moved an application for being enlarging on regular bail and the same having been rejected, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application.

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. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having perused the Rojkam and other documents, it would appear that the applicant had remained present regularly up till 07.03.2025 and whereas, the accused no.2 had not remained present before the learned Trial Court. It appears that while the applicant did not remain present on one occasion without any application for exemption, the learned Trial Court had issued non-bailable warrant against accused no.1 and 2. This Court has also perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court and whereas, it would appear that the reasons assigned are more applicable to the accused no.2 and not regarding accused no.1.

6.1. Considering such a situation, more particularly, since the applicant had remained present and the applicant had originally been released on regular bail in the substantive offence, this Court is inclined to consider this application. 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

7. 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 de