IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8782 of 2026 ========================================================

SHAKTIDAN JUJARDAN GADHAVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR(5678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 16/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nirav Padhiyar on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. 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. 1 of 2026 registered with ACB Police Station, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( Amendment 2018) after filing of the charge-sheet.

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 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.

5. 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, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

Following aspects are considered :

(i) The offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(ii) The allegation being that the applicant and employee of the Court, had sought for illegal gratification for working as a Court Commissioner.

(iii) It would also appear that the present applicant had been apprehended red handed while accepting a part of the said amount.

(iv) While learned Advocate Mr. Padhiyar would inter alia try and submit that the present applicant was seeking for fees as acting as a Court Commissioner yet, prima facie it would appear that the material found by the Investigating Officer suggests otherwise.

(v) Be that as it may since Investigation is over, the charge- sheet is filed and the present applicant has been suspended, to this Court it would appear that there is no requirement of the applicant being in custody any further.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 1 of 2026 registered with ACB Police Station, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ) with one surety