SUDHIRBHAI VIJAYBHAI PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/13251/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 13251 of 2026

==========================================================
                         SUDHIRBHAI VIJAYBHAI PARMAR
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                 Date : 16/06/2026
                                     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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for
regular     bail        in   connection    with      FIR    being      C.R.      No.
11208045250768 of 2025 registered with Malviyanagar
Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences under Sections
103(1), 109, 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sction 135 of
the Gujarat Police Act.

[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
present applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence.
Initially, the applicant was not named in the FIR, which was
registered against three named accused persons and two
unknown persons. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has
already been filed and, therefore, nothing remains to be
recovered or discovered from the applicant. It is further


                                     Page 1 of 7
   R/CR.MA/13251/2026                          ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




submitted that a cross-complaint has been lodged wherein the
uncle and brother of the present applicant lost their lives.
According to the defence, the deceased himself was the aggressor
and had come to the residence of the present applicant along
with the co-accused persons. There is no specific allegation that
the present applicant inflicted any knife blow. Even in the dying
declaration of the deceased, there is no reference to the
involvement of the present applicant, nor is his name mentioned
therein. The deceased merely stated that he was assaulted with a
sword and a knife. It is further submitted that the present FIR
has been lodged as a counterblast to the cross-complaint. Prior
to the lodging of the present FIR, a complaint had already been
filed by the witnesses from the side of the present applicant. It is
submitted that the complainant lodged the present complaint
belatedly as a retaliatory measure. The only allegation against
the present applicant is that he assaulted the victim with kick
and fist blows. No allegation has been made that he used any
sharp-edged weapon. It is further submitted that the cause of
death was a stab injury and no such injury is attributed to the
present applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed, the co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail, and the present
applicant has been in custody since 24.10.2025. Considering
that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace, he submits that the
applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
conditions.


[4.0] Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that
the present applicant is involved in a serious offence of murder.
It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused,


                              Page 2 of 7
   R/CR.MA/13251/2026                               ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




assaulted the deceased, who was the brother of the complainant,
and therefore his role is serious and cannot be viewed in
isolation. It is further submitted that the role of the present
applicant is equal to that of the co-accused who inflicted the
knife blow, as the deceased ultimately succumbed to the injuries
sustained during the incident. It is further submitted that if the
applicant is released on bail, the possibility of tampering with
evidence or threatening prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled
out. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
Learned APP further submitted that even while in custody, the
applicant attempted to settle the dispute, and before the learned
Sessions Judge, the complainant had filed a compromise
affidavit,    which     prima   facie   indicates   the    possibility        of
influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. 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


                                 Page 3 of 7
      R/CR.MA/13251/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the
State and similar other considerations are required to be
considered.


[6.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having perused the investigation papers, it
appears that the present applicant has been arraigned as an
accused and that a cross-complaint has also been filed in
connection with the same incident. In the cross-complaint, the
applicant himself is shown as a victim who sustained knife
injuries. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the case
has culminated into Sessions Case No. 19 of 2026, which is
presently pending for trial. It further appears that the FIR was
initially lodged against three named persons and two unknown
persons, and the name of the present applicant surfaced during
the     course       of    investigation.    In     the   cross-complaint,            the
applicant's brother and uncle are stated to have lost their lives.
It is alleged therein that the deceased Arun had instigated the
co-accused and called for a knife, which ultimately came to be
used during the incident. So far as the fatal injuries sustained
by the deceased Arun are concerned, the same are not alleged to
have been inflicted by the present applicant.


[6.1] It also appears that a cross-complaint has been filed and a
Coordinate Bench, while enlarging the co-accused on bail in the
cross-case, observed that the incident appeared to be a case of
free fight. Therefore, at this stage, the question as to who was
the aggressor is not of much relevance, as appreciation of
evidence is not permissible while deciding a bail application.


                                      Page 4 of 7
      R/CR.MA/13251/2026                                ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




[6.2] Prima facie, the role attributed to the present applicant is
that he is not named in the dying declaration of the deceased.
Moreover, the specific allegation against him is that he assaulted
the deceased with kick and fist blows. No fatal or lethal injury is
attributed to him. The commencement and conclusion of the
trial are likely to take considerable time. The applicant has been
in custody since 24.10.2025 and the prosecution has cited as
many as 60 witnesses.


[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 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.


                                   Page 5 of 7
   R/CR.MA/13251/2026                            ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




11208045250768 of 2025 registered with Malviyanagar
Police Station, Rajkot City 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/she 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 Aadhaar card, email ID/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/contact number without
          prior permission of Trial Court;
  (g)     not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned
          trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the
          applicant.
  (h)     not to enter into Rajkot District for a period of six months
          except for marking presence before the concerned police
          station and/or for attending Court;



                                Page 6 of 7
      R/CR.MA/13251/2026                                                ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026




      (i)    Not to contact or try to contact directly or indirectly the
             complainant/victim/witnesses connected with the offence.


[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)
ALI




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/06/2026 18:31:03




                                              Page 7 of 7