IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 2977 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3120 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3166 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2881 of 2025 ==========================================================

HAIDER ALI MOHAMMAD HANIF GULAM SHAIKH Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

THROUGH JAIL for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. I. H. SYED, SR. ADVOCATE A/W. MS. SHREYA OJHA, MR.

AMAAN SYED, MR. VISHRUT BHANDARI, ADVOCATE for the applicant MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) A/W. MR. SANDEEP K. SADAWART, ADVOCATE A/W. MR. ARUN DEV, ADVOCATE A/W. MR. GIRISH GOTHWAL, Dy.SP for the NIA.

MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

Order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3120/2025, 3166/2025 &

2881/2025

1. These bail applications are filed by accused Nos. 5, 10 and 11. It is not in dispute that bail applications of the co-accused i.e., Accused no. 4 and 11 were rejected by the Trial Court and also by this Court and as a consequence they had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 15445-15446/2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 183/2026. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 15445-15446/2025 has held as follows while granting bail:

5. We are at pains to note that the petitioner is in custody as an under-trial prisoner past almost 10 years.

6. Whatever may be the nature of the crime as alleged, it is expected of the prosecution to proceed with the trial expeditiously and try to prove its case in accordance with the charge framed by the Trial Court.

7. We enquired with Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent No.2 as regards the status of the trial.

8. According to him, in last 10 years, the prosecution has been able to examine 61 witnesses and it still proposes to examine 58 more witnesses. If it took 10 years to examine 61 witnesses, we wonder how much more time the prosecution would take in examining the remaining 58 witnesses.

9. Since the trial is in progress, we do not propose to say anything as regards the merits of the prosecution’s case in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

10. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in jail past 10 years and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner.

11. The aforesaid aspect of the matter in fact should have been kept in mind by the High Court itself while hearing the appeal preferred by the petitioner – herein praying for bail.

12. In the result, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

13. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose. If the prosecution wants a particular condition to be imposed so as to protect its interest, it shall be open for the concerned Public Prosecutor to pray appropriately before the Trial Court.

14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

2. In Criminal Appeal No. 183 /2026 in respect of Accused No.11 vide order dated 12.01.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows while granting bail.

Leave granted.

The appellant seeks bail, in connection with FIR, registered as RC-13/2015/NIA-DLI before National Investigation Agency, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 114, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 153-A, 301 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25(1A), 25(1AA), and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Admittedly, the appellant has been under incarceration for more than 10 years. The co- accused has been