IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7008 of 2026 ==========================================================

MANSUKHBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI SOLANKI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS AMRUTA A BHARADWAJ(13399) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. K M ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 02/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11213042230215 of 2023 registered with Paddhari Police Station, District Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 28.04.2023 and since then, he is in custody. The applicant has undergone incarceration for a period of almost 3 years. He has submitted that Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of several witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Those witnesses in their statements have not named the present applicant. The perused of the F.I.R. indicates that the only role attributed to the applicant is to the effect that he was present at the scene of offence armed with a iron rod. Except this, no other overt act has been attributed to the present applicant in commission of the present offence. She, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has opposed the present application inter-alia contending that the first informant himself is an eye-witness to the incident as alleged in the F.I.R. which had taken place in two parts. The applicant herein had actively participated in the first part of the incident wherein he has also assaulted with an iron rod. He further submitted that the allegations against the applicant, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents produced on record.

5. The F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged by the son of the deceased, who was present at the scene of offence and had also sustained injuries in the incident. It is stated in the F.I.R. that when his father i.e. deceased had gone to park his motorcycle, the present applicant and the other co-accused had also reached there and the co-accused had started assaulting the son of the first informant. The applicant was also present at the place and he along with the other co-accused had assaulted the deceased. It was only after the deceased fell down because of the assault that the other co-accused started further assaulting the deceased. Thus, it is not the case that the present applicant had not caused any injuries to the deceased. The P.M.Note indicates that the deceased had sustained as many as 14 external injuries on his body and as per the P.M.Note, the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage and head due to chest injuries. It is sought to be contended on the part of the applicant that several witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. have not named the applicant. However, the fact remains that the first informant who himself is an injured eye-witness has categorically named the present applicant and has also stated the role played by the applicant in the F.I.R. and there are several other witnesses who in their statement before the Investigating Officer have categorically named the present applicant. Therefore, merely