IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4189 of 2026 ========================================================== BHIKHARAM (BHIKHABHAI) @ VIKRAM S/O HANUMANRAM JAAT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK SONI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 18/03/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kishan Daiya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni 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. 11188004230652 of 2023 registered with Dhansura Police Station, District: Aravalli for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 15(C), 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

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. Allegation being very serious inasmuch as the accused was apprehended while driving the vehicle which contained poppy straw weighing around 266.250 kilograms. The commercial quantity being 50 kilograms.

ii. It would appear in this regard that while the role of the present applicant as being the one found in conscious possession being very clear yet, this Court has taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had been arrested on 31.10.2023 and whereas, this Court having called for a report from the learned Sessions Court, as regards the status of the trial and whereas, except for the charge being framed on 01.10.2024, the case has not proceeded further.

iii.Thus, it would appear that the trial, would take substantial time in concluding.

iv. It is also pointed out by learned APP that the present applicant has an antecedent of being involved in a similar offence, more particularly, where the applicant is alleged to have transacted in commercial quantity of the very same material i.e. poppy straw weighing around 273 kilograms.

v. As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Daiya would tender a copy of an order dated 21.01.2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.14429 of 2025, whereby this Court has enlarged the applicant on regular bail in the other offence.

vi. Perusal of the said order and having taken into consideration the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, it would prima facie appear to this Court that the present applicant had been apprehended in the present offence first and whereas, though the other offence was registered earlier, he had been arrested in connection with the same later on.

vii. It would also appear that the role alleged in the other FIR being that the applicant was a drive