DIVYAKUMAR CHHOTELAL YADAVversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    R/CR.MA/10957/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 10957 of 2026
==========================================================
                         DIVYAKUMAR CHHOTELAL YADAV
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RITESH B DAVE(2815) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 07/05/2026

                                   ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11205043251183 of 2025 registered
with Bhuj B Division Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh, for the offences under
Sections 420, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Chargesheet has been
filed. The applicant is in jail since 04.01.2026 and having no past antecedent.
Allegation against the applicant is that, he has identified executor of the
document before the Notary, except this, no allegation is there against the
applicant. The applicant has not gained any benefit. He therefore submits
that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged
on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed
the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for
regular bail on the ground that the applicant with malafide intention in



                                   Page 1 of 4
      R/CR.MA/10957/2026                               ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




connivance with other accused have created false document and filed false
affidavit that complainant forgo his right from joint property in question.
Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be
exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the
nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of
the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the
State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.


[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects
have been considered:
(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(2) Applicant is behind the bars since 04.01.2026;
(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(4) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.
(5) Allegation against the applicant is that, he has identified executor of the
document before the Notary, except this, no allegation is there against the
applicant.
(6)      Case is based on documentary evidence.
(7)      Applicant has no past antecedent.

[7.0] 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


                                    Page 2 of 4
    R/CR.MA/10957/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of
trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but
amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated
principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as
well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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.
Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11205043251183 of 2025 registered with Bhuj B Division Police Station,
Bhuj-Kachchh on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-
five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall
not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play
mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court
concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month
for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial Court;
(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall



                                    Page 3 of 4
    R/CR.MA/10957/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he 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.

[10.0] 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.

[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations
of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court
while enlarging the applicant on bail.


[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted




                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2026 15:34:56
                                                 Page 4 of 4