IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.

2624 of 2025 ==========================================================

RUSHIRAJ @ LALO @ LETEST S/O RASHMIKANTBHAI TAKHATSINH THAKOR PURABIYA DARBAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR TRUPESH KATHRIYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 13/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Denish Mavadhiya appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 – complainant.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the appellant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11203023211183 of 2021 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Junagadh, District Junagadh, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 102(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that considering the role attributed to the appellant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the appellant 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 appellant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the appellant 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 appellant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and the appeal 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. The present application being considered on the ground of delay in trial, more particularly it appears that the present applicant is in custody since 04.06.2024 and whereas the trial is neither on the verge of conclusion nor does it appear that the trial would conclude in the near future.

ii. It would appear in this regard that the charge-sheet lists around 157 witnesses and whereas it would appear that a learned Co-ordinate Bench vide an order dated 03.11.2025 had called the report from the learned Trial Court as regards the status of the trial and whereas it would appear that vide report dated 10.11.2025, the learned Trial Court had informed that around 110 witnesses are yet to be examined and whereas the learned Trial Court would require at least one year for completing the trial.

iii. This Court has also considered the fact that a co-accused namely Kamlesh @ Machar Sureshbhai @ Dulabhai Solanki had been released on regular bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20730 of 2025, more particularly it would appear that the role attributed to the present applicant and the role attributed to the said accused being almost similar in nature, i.e. of assaulting the deceased with sharp edged weapons.

iv. Considering such a si