IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 1810 of 2026 ========================================================

PRAJAPATI GHEVARAM VOHTARAM LALARAM Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kishan Daiya on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma 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 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. 11217030241359 of 2024 registered with Sidhpur Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 17(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) before filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled against, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is not filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. The present application is vehemently objected to by learned APP on behalf of respondent- State by submitting that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the FIR, 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 for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

7. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The allegation is as regards being dealt with the contraband- Opium weighing around 1.66 kilograms and whereas it would appear that the same was not found in the conscious possession of the present applicant.

(ii) It would appear in this regard that the person, brother of the present applicant, is also arraigned as an accused insofar as the present offence is concerned and the submission being that both the present applicant and his brother were addicted to the said substance and whereas the same appears to be confirmed by the Investigating Officer in his affidavit and whereas the same also appears to have been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench while releasing the brother of the present applicant vide an order dated 19.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11582 of 2025.

8. 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

9. 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. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11217030241359 of 2024 registered