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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6980 of 2026 ==========================================================

JAYDEEPBHAI DINESHBHAI VANK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 10/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. 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. 11193009240220 of

2024 registered with Bagasara Police Station, Amreli.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the applicant is actively involved in commission of the offence in question. One of the witnesss statement has been recorded during the course of investigation. As stated in his statement, he had happened to meet the deceased in the hospital and the deceased had informed him that the present applicant and the other co- accused had assaulted with knife. Moreover, the receipt of the FSL report after the withdrawal of the earlier application, cannot said to be a change in circumstances. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 5631 of 2025, which was ordered to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025. Thereafter, the present successive application has been filed by the present applicant. Upon perusal of record, it appears that there is contradiction as regards the role played by the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. The witness, whose statement, the prosecution sought to rely upon, has stated in his statement before the police, that the deceased informed him that the present applicant and the other co-accused had assaulted him with knife, whereas, the other witness, in his statement, has categorically stated that the witness Kausal Raj had informed him, that the deceased informed him that the present applicant had caught hold of him, whereas the other co-accused had inflicted a knife blow upon him. Considering this aspect, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e.

prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 09.11.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusa