ARBAZKHAN SHERAZAMKHAN PATHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    R/CR.MA/14377/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 14377 of 2026
==========================================================
              ARBAZKHAN SHERAZAMKHAN PATHAN
                              Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 28/07/2026
                                  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.11995001250037 of 2025 registered with
State Monitoring Cell Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the
offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and sections
111(3) and 111(4) of the BNS.

[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. 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 looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the



                                   Page 1 of 4
      R/CR.MA/14377/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




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)       The allegation is that applicant is the alleged supplier of the
          contraband and is arraigned on the basis of statement of co-accused
          however, no any corroborative piece of evidence collected to show
          that the applicant is the supplier or was in contact of the co-accused
          from whose conscious possession the alleged contraband is
          recovered and nothing is recovered from the conscious possession
          of the present applicant. Though alleged contraband mephadrone
          weighing 289 Gram 770 Milligram is obviously commercial quantity
          and rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable but
          since nothing is found from the conscious possession of the
          applicant and even otherwise, investigation is over and charge-sheet
          is filed;

(2)       Applicant is behind the bars since 10.12.2025;

(3)       There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;




                                    Page 2 of 4
      R/CR.MA/14377/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




(4)          Though the applicant is having past antecedent at Rajasthan, he is
             presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and has been enlarged
             on bail by the competent Court at Rajasthan;

(5)          Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some
             time;

[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.11995001250037 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police
Station, District Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with ONE LOCAL 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


                                       Page 3 of 4
    R/CR.MA/14377/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




               collected by the police;

       (c)     surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

     (d)       not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial
               Court concerned;

     (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 copy of Aadhaar card, email ID/contact number /
               permanent and 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 and
               contact number/SIM card 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.

[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.)
Ajay
    Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
    Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/07/2026 14:38:35



                                                  Page 4 of 4