IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 24597 of 2025 ==========================================================

VIPUL @ VIKKI VINODBHAI TILAKDHARI TIWARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DHRUV H CHAUDHARY(12328) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHERIA ADDL. 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.Bhargav Bhatt with learned advocates Mr. Kishan Chakwawala and Mr.RM Chakwawala appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Katheria appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary for the original complainant.

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. 11191015240503 of 2024 registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2), 296(B), 103(2), 76 and 61(2) of the B.N.S.Act and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant being under incarceration in connection under offence under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2), 296(B), 103(2), 76 and 61(2) of the B.N.S.Act, has approached this Court, more particularly, in the midst of the trial inter alia submitting that the deposition of the complainant, has raised various issues and whereas, it is requested of this Court to examine those issues, more particularly, according to learned advocate, the case of the applicant being that the applicant is completely innocent.

4.1. Learned advocate would at the outset draw the attention of this Court to the deposition of the complainant and would submit that the deposition of the complainant reflects that even after the father of the complainant, had suffered injuries in an assault, the complainant had waited for around six minutes to take his father to the hospital. It is submitted that the conduct of the complainant being very unnatural, the same may be taken into account by this Court.

4.2. Learned advocate would also take this Court to the inquest panchnama and would submit that the inquest panchnama clearly reflects that the deceased, had not suffered any injuries. Learned advocate would also take this Court to an accidental case filed in so far as, the death of the deceased. Learned advocate would submit that the accidental death case had been registered in the station diary at 4:20 hours, and whereas the complaint itself had been registered on 4:10 hours, reflecting that the FIR was anti-

timed.

4.3. Learned advocate would also take this Court to the report of the Doctor, at the hospital where the deceased was treated and whereas, learned advocate would submit that no history of the assault had been given before the Doctor. Learned advocate would also rely upon a chart, inter alia trying to show that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant as compared to the CCTV footage, which was at the place of the incident. Learned advocate pointing out that the incident itself had taken place at a different place and whereas, the same is coming out from the deposition of the complainant, that is to say that a whole new story is coming out from the deposition. Lastly, learned advocate would rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.12.2025 in case of one Mohammadbilal Usmangani Kureshi @ Bilal Usman Kureshi vs. State of Gujarat in case of SLP(Criminal) No.18137/2025 and would submit that in the sai