High Court of Gujarat
SAHIL SUSHEEL JATversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- VAIBHAVI D NANAVATI
Holding
The court held that the applicants are entitled to regular bail and ordered their release on bail.
Summary
The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an FIR alleging they piloted a truck carrying prohibited liquor, violating several provisions of the Prohibition Act. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the nature of the offences and the applicants' non‑residence in Gujarat. The court noted the applicants' limited role, lack of prior criminal record, and the absence of any recovery or remand request. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the court held that bail could be granted if appropriate conditions were imposed to mitigate flight risk. Consequently, the court ordered the release of each applicant on a Rs 10,000 bail bond with a surety, subject to conditions such as surrendering passports, not leaving Gujarat without permission, and regular reporting to the police.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences under the Prohibition Act.
- Whether the applicants' alleged role and the nature of the offences justify denial of bail.
- Whether the risk of the applicants absconding can be adequately mitigated by bail conditions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
regular bailProhibition ActBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaSection 483bail conditionsflight riskpre‑trial detention
Judgment
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
CHARGESHEET) NO. 12367 of 2026
==========================================================
SAHIL SUSHEEL JAT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 03/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Divyang A. Joshi for learned
advocate Mr.Chintan S. Popat appearing on behalf of the
applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Ms.Asmita Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of
the respondent-State.
3. The applicants have filed this application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with
FIR being C.R. No. 11993004260425/2026 registered with
Bhachau Police Station, Kutch East – Ghandhidham for the
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(b), 98(2),
81, 83 of the Prohibition Act.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature
of the allegation levelled, the applicants may be enlarged on
regular bail. It is further submitted that no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for indefinite
period. It is further contended that the applicants are 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 applicants, this Court may not
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the
application may be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
aspects are considered:-
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
i. The allegation against the applicants being that they
were piloting the truck which was carrying the prohibited
liquor.
ii. The role attributed to the present applicants are that the
present applicants were present in the swift car which was
piloting the truck in question.
iii. It would further appear that the applicants were the
friends of accused no.11 who was driving the car and no
other specific role being coming out against the present
applicants.
iv. The fact of there being no criminal antecedents against
the present applicants.
v. Considering the fact that there is no recovery made from
the present applicants, no remand is sought for against the
present applicants so also considering the limited role
attributed to the present applicants, this Court is inclined
to consider this application.
vi. Apprehension of the learned APP that the applicants
are not being resident of the State of Gujarat, if released,
they may abscond, could be allayed by imposing suitable
conditions.
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
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.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
applicants 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
applicants on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants
are ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R.
registered as C.R. No. 11993004260425/2026 registered with
Bhachau Police Station, Kutch East – Ghandhidham, on
executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
each with one surety of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions
that they shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a
week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission
of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish the proposed address of residence to the I.O.
and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond
and shall not change the residence without prior intimation
to the I.O.;
[f] mark presence once a week till the charge-sheet is filed
and thereafter once a month for a period of six months
before the concerned police station.
9. The Authorities will release the applicants only if they
are not required in connection with any other offence for the
time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is
committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take
appropriate action in the matter.
10. 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
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/12367/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2026
conditions in accordance with law.
11. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be
influenced by any observations of this Court which are of
preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of
considering the application of the applicants for being
released on regular bail.
12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Bhoomi
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/06/2026 11:53:20
Page 6 of 6
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "regular bail"Sign in to search