IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 25971 of 2025 ========================================================

NITISHKUMAR NANDKISHORE MANDAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. 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. 11993007250196 of 2023 registered with Gandhidham ‘B’ Division Police Station, Kachchh ( East) for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

3. 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. 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.

5. Having heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent- State and having perused charge-sheet papers, and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court this Court is not inclined to consider the present application for the following reasons:

(i) The allegations in the FIR being very serious inasmuch as the applicants had transacted contraband- Ganja weighing 140 kilograms. (ii) The role of the present applicant coming out very clearly in statement of co-accused one Karan @ Shyam.

(iii) While it is clear that statement of co-accused may not be the only reason, more particularly since statement of co-accused would not appear in the charge-sheet papers yet, perusing the same it would appear that the present applicant is linked to the transaction more particularly the present applicant alleged to have gone along with accused Pintoo Yadav, to the shop of the co-accused and had induced him to accept parcels on their behalf and whereas it would appear that initially while the co- accused had not been told about the fact of Ganja being sent through the parcels later on, it appears that the co-accused was informed about the same.

(iv) The fact of the present applicant having conversed with the co-accused who is alleged to have sent the contraband from Orissa, more particularly at around time when the transaction had happened that is between 05.01.2024 to 10.02.2024 for 136 times and whereas the contraband having been apprehended by the Investigating Officer on 25.02.2024 (v) It would appear in this regards that prima facie while the CDRs may only indicate that the applicant may have conversed with the co-accused yet, considering the way the entire offence has been committed t