IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3645 of 2026 ========================================================

RAHIL SALIMBHAI HAJIMOHAMMAD MANSURI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MS. ALVEERA S KACHARA(11935) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Alveera S. Kachara on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred 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. 11995001250025 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(B) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 111(3) and 11(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

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. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The allegation being of having transacted contraband- Mephedrone weighing approximately 34 Grams – intermediate quantity, the commercial quantity being 50 Grams.

(ii) The role attributed to the applicant being of the supplier and whereas it would appear that beyond the statement of the co-accused who was found in conscious possession and CDRs, there is no other material against the present applicant.

(iii) While the statement of the co-accused obviously not being a part of the charge-sheet, to this Court it would appear that CDRs would reflect the fact of the parties having conversed with each other and the nature of the conversation would not be known.

(iv) Though the present applicant appears to have three different antecedents yet, none of the same is under the NDPS Act. Considering the same, the twin requirement under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 stands fulfilled this Court is inclined to consider the application.

7. 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

8. 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 detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge th