MAYURDAN PRAVINDAN GADHAVI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/18317/2026 (GJHC240593732026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 18317 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAYURDAN PRAVINDAN GADHAVI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ZUBIN BHARDA WITH MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

Date : 03/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, learned
advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant
had earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17044
th
of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4
September 2024, against which the applicant had approached the
Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Number 8719
of 2025. The Apex Court also dismissed the said Special Leave
Petition, however, directed the learned Trial Court to conclude the
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:36:10 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18317/2026 (GJHC240593732026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
trial within a period of two years from the date of the order.
th
However, thereafter, by an order dated 17 July 2026, the Apex
Court had considered the case of the other co-accused, namely
Shaileshbhai Bhagwanbhai Mangukiya for grant of bail. It was,
therefore, contended that since the role attributed to the present
applicant is similar to that attributed to the said co-accused
Shaileshbhai Bhagwanbhai Mangukiya, and, therefore, on the
ground of parity, the case of the present applicant is also required
to be considered for grant of bail. He further submitted that the
applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence
th
on 20 December 2023 and since then he is in custody. He has
undergone incarceration for a period of more than two and half
years. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and
enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable terms and
conditions.
2. Learned APP has opposed the present application, contending
that the present applicant had allowed his premises to be used for
carrying out the illegal manufacture and sale of the illegal
contraband substance. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the
present application.
3. On having heard the learned advocates, the applicant had
earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17044 of
th
2024, which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 4
September 2024. While dismissing the application, this Court had
made the following observations:
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:36:10 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18317/2026 (GJHC240593732026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the present offence,
investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant was
found in conscious possession of the contraband substance. The only role
attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is to the effect
that the applicant happens to be the owner of the Hotel wherein the co-accused
were found in conscious possession of the contraband substance of Mephedrone
worth 96.18 grams. The present applicant had no knowledge that the said co-
accused were in possession of any such substance and therefore it cannot be said
that the present applicant was in conscious possession of any such contraband
substance. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge
the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP for the respondent. She submitted
that the applicant happens to be the owner of the Hotel wherein the other co-
accused were found possessing the contraband substance of mephedrone of 96
grams, which is a commercial quantity. She therefore submitted to dismiss the
present application.
5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for
the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. The police
authorities had raided the Hotel in question on the basis of a secret information
and the co-accused were found in conscious possession of contraband substance
of Mephedrone worth 96.18 grams. The record indicates that the said co-accused
were occupying the rooms in the Hotel in question since last many days prior to
the raid. It also appears from the record that the present applicant being the
owner of the Hotel was very much aware about the fact that the co-accused
were dealing in contraband substance and despite the said knowledge, he had
allowed those co-accused to occupy the rooms in the Hotel. It has also come on
record that the has applicant herein had allowed the co-accused to use the
premises of the Hotel for their illegal dealings in the contraband substance and
several customers also used to come to Hotel for procuring the contraband
substance.
6. Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in
favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed.
4. The applicant has approached the Apex Court by filing Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8719 of 2025. The Apex Court also,
while not entertaining the said Special Leave Petition, however, has
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:36:10 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18317/2026 (GJHC240593732026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of two
th
years from 17 July 2025. Thus, the order passed by this Court on
th
4 September 2024 has been confirmed by the Apex Court.
5. Insofar the aspect of parity is concerned, the co-accused
Shailesh Mangukiya, who has been considered for grant of bail by
the Apex Court, was merely a manager of the hotel, whereas the
present applicant happens to be the owner of the same hotel.
6. Having regard to the distinct role attributed to the present
applicant, no case for grant of bail on the ground of parity is made
out.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
PARMAR CHIRAG
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:36:10 IST 2026