IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3101 of 2026 ========================================================

AAKIFAHMAD ALIAS LADDU RAIS AHMAD KANUNGA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR MUSAIB I SHAIKH(10565) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA ADDITIONALPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.M.I. Shaikh on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Divyangna Jhala 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. 11995001250019 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C) 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 dealt in contraband- Mephedrone approximately 55 Grams i.e. commercial quantity and whereas it would appear that the same was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant.

(ii) The role attributed to the present applicant being of having supplied the contraband to the accused who was caught in conscious possession and whereas beyond the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material which would link the present applicant to the crime in question.

(iii) It also appears that there is complete absence of any CDR or any money trail, which would show any dealing between the present applicant and the co-accused who has caught in conscious possession of the contraband.

(iv) Though there are some unrelated Whats App chats which show that accused and co-accused in conscious possession were recently having good relations but that by itself would not be enough to implicate the present applicant.

(v) Considering the above though the present applicant is stated to have one antecedent of similar nature, the requirement under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 stands fulfilled.

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