IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 25036 of 2025 ========================================================== VIJAY @ VIJU BODY S/O RAJUBHAI DAYARAM UTTAMCHANDANI SINDHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR CHIRAG H PAREKH(5249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.

1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chirag Parekh appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Jay Mehta 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-256/2014 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 506(2), 212 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act.

3.1. The applicant having arraigned as an accused in connection with the aforementioned FIR, having been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court and whereas, the applicant thereafter not attending the trial regularly, learned Sessions Court was constrained to issue a non-bailable warrant against the present applicant and the applicant having been arrested in connection with the said warrant, had preferred an application for regular bail before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court having not considered the same, the present application is preferred.

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.

4.1. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was suffering from various ailment and whereas, only on account of the same, the applicant did not remain present in trial. Learned advocate would submit that the applicant would make sure that the applicant would henceforth attend the trial regularly. Learned advocate would submit that the applicant would deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which amount will stand a surety for the applicant to attend the trial.

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. This Court has considered the fact that the applicant had been enlarged on bail in the substantive offence and further considered the submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the learned Trial Court, which amount will stand a surety for the applicant to attend the trial regularly.

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 against the applicant in the First