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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3265 of 2026 ========================================================

KAVITABEN SAPPANBHAI RAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR.AAKASH K MODH(9791) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aakash Modh on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for 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 lady 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. 11196012250401 of 2025 registered with Fatehganj Police Station, Vadodara for offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 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 that the applicant had strangulated a person with whom she was in a live- in relationship.

(ii) The incident having happened at the residence where the applicant and the deceased were residing and whereas it appears that applicant has been arraigned on basis of circumstantial evidence.

(iii) It also appears that there was a provocation from the side of the deceased as per the history given by the applicant to the Doctor who was treating her for injuries sustained by the applicant during the course of the alleged transaction.

(iv) The fact of the applicant being lady accused without any antecedent.

(v) The fact of the applicant being in custody since 02.09.2025 and the charge-sheet having been filed by the Investigating Officer.

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 the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196012250401 of 2025 registered with Fatehganj Police Station, Vadodara on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial