PIYUSHBHAI LALJIBHAI RADADIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that regular bail should be granted to the applicant pending trial.
Summary
The applicant, Piyushbhai L. Radadiya, was arrested as accused No.2 in an FIR alleging extortion and threats against a complainant, with the case registered under Sections 308(5), 61(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming innocence and that no material needed to be recovered from him. The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offences, but the Court noted the applicant’s lack of direct involvement, the release of a similarly situated co‑accused, the presumption of innocence, and the principle of parity. Relying on precedents such as Ramesh Batukbhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, the Court held that pre‑trial detention would amount to a de facto conviction. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with a surety, subject to standard conditions, and directed that the trial court not be influenced by the preliminary observations made herein.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted before the filing of a charge‑sheet under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for offences punishable under the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the parity principle requires the applicant to be released on bail as a co‑accused has been granted bail.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged extortion and threat offences preclude bail despite the applicant's antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 308(5), s. 3(5), s. 351(3), s. 61(2)
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/16598/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
CHARGESHEET) NO. 16598 of 2026
==========================================================
PIYUSHBHAI LALJIBHAI RADADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN BHARDA with MR A A ZABUAWALA(6823) for the Applicant
MR HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/07/2026
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.11213094260481 of 2026 registered with
Gondal City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences
punishable under Sections 308(5), 61(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “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/16598/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026
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) Applicant is arraigned as accused No.2 as per the FIR and allegation
is that accused No.1 posted a post on his facebook page defaming
company of the complainant pursuant to which the complainant
contacted present applicant who introduced the complainant with
accused No.1 and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 4 and the present
applicant under threat to do away with the complainant tried to
extort Rs.21 lakh from the complainant. Even thereafter accused
No.1 called the complainant through whatsapp call and threatened
that he will file application before GST Department and Police
Department however, now substantial part of investigation is over;
(2) Applicant is behind the bars since 01.07.2026;
(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(4) The applicant is seven past antecedents however, he is governed by
the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty;
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/16598/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026
(5) Similarly situated co-accused has been released on bail and hence,
on the ground of parity as laid down in Ramesh Batukbhai Dabhi vs.
State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1150, applicant is
entitled to get benefit of parity;
(6) 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.11213094260481 of 2026 registered with Gondal City ‘B’ Division
Police Station, Rajkot Rural 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
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/16598/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026
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 15 days till the charge-sheet is filed between 11.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the UIDAI Number, Contact Number/s, Passport Number
(if he is having the passport), E-mail address 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 without prior permission of Trial Court;
(h) not to indulge in any illegal activity or any similar type of offence
failing which concerned Investigating Officer shall have liberty to
file an application for cancellation of bail against the present
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 21/07/2026 14:18:54
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.