IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6922 of 2026 ========================================================== JITENDRA @ JAGDISH @ SHAILESHBHAI BHAVANBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MRJ RUTVIK J BRAHMBHATT(12345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 PARTH J BRAHMBHATT(9373) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 25/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Parth Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor MrKrutik Parikh appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

3. 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. I-07/2014 registered with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 201 of the IPC and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

3.1. The applicant having been arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR, had been enlarged on regular bail by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2015 and whereas, since the applicant had not remained present during the trial regularly, the learned Trial Court had issued a non-bailable warrant against the present applicant and the applicant having been arrested in connection with the same on 04.02.2026, had moved an application for being released before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court having rejected the said application, the applicant has approached this Court by way of present application.

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. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The fact of the applicant having been released in a substantive offence.

ii. The fact of the applicant having no antecedents.

iii.The fact of the voluntary submission made by learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt under instruction that applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- before the learned Trial Court, which amount shall stand a surety for the applicant to attend the trial regularly.

iv. The fact of the applicant being in custody since

04.02.2026 on account of the regular bail granted to him being canceled.

v. Considering the above, while this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Court had committed no error in not releasing the present applicant, yet, for the above reasons, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

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

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made agains