IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 23758 of 2025 ========================================================

JADAVBHAI GOVINDBHAI RANGPARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. AB Gateshaniya on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred 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. 11211060230173 of 2023 registered with Dhajala Police Station, District: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(B), 8(C) and 20(a)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record as well as the charge-sheet papers, this Court is disinclined to consider this application for the following reasons:

[1] The fact of a very large quantity of the contraband that is around 950 kilograms of Ganja, being found from the field which was under the cultivation and occupation of the present applicant.

[2] Learned Advocate Mr. Gateshaniya would refer to an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.01.2026, wherein, the case was with regard to Mephedrone involving around 2428 kilograms and whereas it is submitted by learned Advocate that even in a serious case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering that the applicant therein, was under incarceration for three and half years, had been pleased to release the applicant therein and whereas learned Advocate would submit that since the applicant herein, has been undergoing incarceration for a period of approximately two years and two months, therefore the benefit of the said decision should inure in favour of the present applicant also.

[3] To this Court it would appear that while the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Advocate, states about the trial having been delayed substantially and whereas, yet, to this Court it would appear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the prosecution was required to consider the case of around 159 witnesses and whereas even examination of 50% of the witnesses would take a long time and whereas it was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there were cases almost ten years old pen