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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3020 of 2026 ==========================================================

VIJAYKUMAR SUBAJI BAROT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VIRAT G. POPAT with MR SUMIT B SIKARWAR(5991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. 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.11195030230149 of 2023 registered with Mavsari Police Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 34, 120B, 427, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act.

2. Heard learned advocate Shri. Virat G. Popot appearing for the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.25565 of 2024 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025. However, the liberty was granted in favour of the applicant to file an application afresh after period of Nine Months if there is no progress in the trial. Till date, the charge has not been framed against the accused persons before the learned Trial Court. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 08.04.2024. The applicant has undergone incarceration for period of almost 22 months by now. After the withdrawal of the earlier application filed by the applicant, the other co-accused have been considered for grant of bail by this Court. The role attributed to the present applicant is either similar or much lesser than the role attributed to the other co- accused who have been considered for grant of bail. He further submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant is such that after the deceased fell down from the motorcycle due to the impact of the Bolero car which was being driven by the other co-accused and he was standing on the road, the applicant herein had dashed his car with the deceased and had pushed him to the bushes and thereafter, the other co-accused who were present in the car got down from the car and shot dead the deceased with the firearms and so also inflicted the knife injuries. The deceased does not appear to have sustained any injury because of the impact of the car driven by the present applicant nor the act on the part of the applicant of dashing his car with the deceased had resulted into the death of the deceased. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed to the present application contending that the applicant had played an active role in commission of the offence. The applicant and the other co- accused had hatched a conspiracy for eliminating the deceased. The applicant herein had a strong motive for committing the offence as the deceased had killed his uncle and as a part of the conspiracy when the deceased and his wife were riding on a motorcycle on the road, the other co-accused had dashed the Bolero car with the motorcycle of the deceased and due to an impact, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle. Thereafter, the applicant had dashed his car with the deceased and had pushed him to the bushes besides the road and thereafter, the other co-accused had inflicted the injuries with the firearm as well as with knife. The role attributed to the other co-accused who have been considered for grant of bail cannot be equated with the role attributed to the present applicant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased was convicted fo