IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7943 of 2026 ==========================================================

MAMTABEN KAMLESHBHAI DUDHIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 07/04/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta, 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.

11198066250292 of 2025 registered with Velavadar Bhal Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 54 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Section 135 of the G.P. 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 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.

7. 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. Prima facie, while, it would appear that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused inter alia, on the ground that she was having an extramarital affair with one Amit, more particularly, the deceased being her husband yet, it would appear that there is no material whatsoever in the charge-sheet, which would even go to show that the present applicant either had an extramarital affair with the main accused or that she had any involvement in the offence in question.

ii. It would appear that the theory of the extramarital affair, starts with the FIR itself where the complainant states that his uncle, who had informed him about the death of the deceased. It also appears that the complainant was informed by the deceased at least 4-5 months prior to date of the incident that wife of the deceased was having an extramarital relationship with the accused no.2 - Amit Sharma, who happens to be a friend of the deceased and that both of them would kill me.

iii. The theory of an extramarital affair is also allegedly supported by statements of a couple of witnesses, who inter alia state that the deceased before his death had told them that his wife was having an extramarital relation with the accused no.2 iv. As on the other hand, it would appear from the FIR itself, that it is the present applicant, who had informed the complainant about the incident as regards the deceased having gone with the accused nos.1 and 2, at 3:00 am in the morning, whereafter the deceased did not return.

v. It also appears that a statement of brother of accused no.2, which is tried to be relied upon by learned APP i.e. statement of Kishan Papayo Tulsidas Sharma, inter alia states about the said witness having seen his brother and the deceased traveling at around time of the incident i.e. ar