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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2338 of 2026 ==========================================================

ANISHKHAN ABDULVAHID KHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 06/02/2026

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. 11210050240845 of 2024 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Section 8(C), 22(B) and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 18.11.2024 and since then he is in custody. Except the statement of co- accused, there is no other material connecting the present applicant with the offence in question. So far as the aspect of antecedents are concerned, out of 3 antecedents registered against the present applicant, he is granted bail in two of the cases. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the applicant was actively involved in commission of the offence in question. There are other antecedents against the present applicant for commission of offence under the NDPS Act itself. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The applicant had earlier referred earlier Criminal Misc. Application No. 10405 of 2025 which was ordered to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.06.2025, since this Court was not inclined the exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred the present successive bail application.

As per the case of prosecution, the other co-accused was found in conscious possession of the contraband substance of Mephedrone and the said substance had been supplied to the said co-accused by the present applicant. However, the material on record indicates that there are three other offences registered against the present applicant for committing the same offence. It is pointed out by learned advocate for the applicant that in one such offence, this Court, vide order dated 15.04.2025 had considered the case of the applicant for grant of bail despite having three antecedents. However, when the said matter was considered by this Court, a statement was made that the applicant was having no other antecedents and therefore this Court had considered the case of the applicant for grant of bail in the other offence, whereas, in the present offence the affidavit of the Investigation Officer clearly indicates that there are three other offences registered against the present applicant.

6. Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out. The application stands dismissed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J)

SAKSHI MAURYA