NILESHBHAI JILUBHAI VAGHELA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.A/3146/2025 (GJHC240883602025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.
3146 of 2025
==========================================================
NILESHBHAI JILUBHAI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS URVASHI K MEHTA(11469) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VRUNDA C SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP and learned advocate Ms. Bhavna D. Acharya
waive service of notice of Admission for and on behalf of the respective
respondents.
[2.0] Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as “Atrocity Act”) challenging the judgment and order dated 18.10.2025
th
passed by the learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.
Application No.2995 of 2025 whereby the learned Judge rejected the
application filed by the present appellant under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection
with FIR being C.R. No.11208045240928 of 2024 registered with
Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1), 117(2), 118(1) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short “BNS”); section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “Atrocity Act”) and
section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:49:22 IST 2026

R/CR.A/3146/2025 (GJHC240883602025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
[3.0] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
not involved in the commission of offence and has been falsely enroped in
the offence and investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. Further, the
applicant is behind the bars since 08.11.2024 and yet the charge is not
framed and therefore, on the ground of delay in trial, the appellant is
required to be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable terms and
conditions.
[4.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State has
vehemently opposed the present appeal and stated that there is prima facie
evidence against the appellant and if released on bail then there is no
possibility to stand to trial by the appellant and there is possibility of
tampering with the evidence and hence, she has requested to dismiss the
present appeal.
[5.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by
learned advocates for both the sides.
[5.1] At the outset, it is to be noted that though the offence is serious one,
till date charge is not framed and not a single witness is examined and the
prosecution has cited as many as 47 witnesses and the appellant herein is
arrested on 08.11.2024 and on the ground that the co-accused is
absconding, trial is not proceeding further however, it is needless to say
that in the event the co-accused are absconding, remedy is available with
the prosecution under the BNSS and also with the trial Court but it appears
that no one is interested in proceeding with trial and therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, prosecution has no right to oppose the
present appeal or to curtail the liberty of the appellant – accused by keeping
him behind the bars for indefinite period.
[5.2] Even, perusing the report dated 29.12.2025 of the learned Sessions
Judge, Rajkot it appears that charge is yet not framed due to abscondence
of accused No.2 – Ashish @ Pungo Bharatbhai and the prosecution has cited
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:49:22 IST 2026

R/CR.A/3146/2025 (GJHC240883602025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
47 witnesses and not a single witness is examined till date and the appellant
is languishing in jail since 08.11.2024. Thus, it appears that prosecution is not
interested to proceed with the matter and once prosecution is not inclined
in expeditious disposal of the trial, prosecution has no right to oppose the
bail application on merits considering the fundamental right of the accused
as regards speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and even otherwise till date charge is not framed and trial is moving at
snail’s pace and therefore, applicant cannot be kept behind the bars for
indefinite period even considering the question of personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713; Mohd.
Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 352 and Pradeep Kumar @ Banu vs. State of Punjab [SLP (Cri.)
No.18775/2025]. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40 .
[6.0] Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated dated
th
18.10.2025 passed by the learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in
Criminal Misc. Application No.2995 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside
and the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection
with FIR being C.R. No.11208045240928 of 2024 registered with
Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot City on executing a personal bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions
that the appellant shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the India without prior permission of the concerned trial
court;
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:49:22 IST 2026

R/CR.A/3146/2025 (GJHC240883602025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month
for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer
and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall
not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned
trial court;
[h] shall not take undue advantage of liberty for prolonging the
trial by taking unnecessary adjournment;
[7.0] The authorities shall release the appellant only if the appellant is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach
of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned
will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the
case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax
any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
[8.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie
observations made by this Court in the present order.
[9.0] Appeal is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:49:22 IST 2026