IMRAN MOHAMMADHANIF CHUCHLA @ IMRAN AATADIYOversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/17355/2026                                ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 17355 of 2026
==========================================================
       IMRAN MOHAMMADHANIF CHUCHLA @ IMRAN AATADIYO
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALTAF Y CHARKHA(7271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 13/08/2026

                                  ORDER

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

[2.0] The present application is "led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11207002250651 of 2025 registered
with Godhra B Division Police Station, Dist. Panchmahal, for the o1ences
under Sections 5(1), 6(b), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation Act (Amendment) Act, Sections 325 of BNS and Section 119 of
the GP Act.


[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the o1ence.
Chargesheet has been "led. Nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the
o1ence, 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 is very much involved in the
present o1ence and has slaughtered the animal. Therefore, present



                                 Page 1 of 4
      R/CR.MA/17355/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




application does not deserve consideration.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged o1ence, 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 chargesheet has been "led;
(2)      None of the o1ence alleged is punishable with life sentence or
         death penalty ;
(3)      Applicant is behind the bar since 02.04.2026;
(4)      There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(5)      From the premises, 3 cattle were found to have been slaughtered and
         total 738 Kgs meat was found.
(6)      Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take
         its own time.
(7)      Co-accused having similarly situated role are enlarged on regular
         bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also (Rameshbhai
         Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in        2011 (3) GLR
         1999), present application deserves consideration.



                                    Page 2 of 4
      R/CR.MA/17355/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




[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
"t 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.
11207002250651 of 2025 registered with Godhra B Division Police
Station, Dist. Panchmahal on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-"ve 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 a month
for a period of six months;
(f)      furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to



                                     Page 3 of 4
        R/CR.MA/17355/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




  the Investigating OHcer 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 Panchmahal District for a period of six months
  except for marking presence before the concerned police station and/or
  for attending Court;

  [9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
  connection with any other o1ence 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 inJuenced 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 13/08/2026 18:35:45



                                                     Page 4 of 4