DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCEversusMAHMED RIZVANBHAI AIYUBBHAI LIMBADA

 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                  CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




                                               Reserved On   : 21/11/2025
                                               Pronounced On : 19/01/2026

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                        18593 of 2025

==========================================================
              DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
                              Versus
            MAHMED RIZVANBHAI AIYUBBHAI LIMBADA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CB GUPTA(1685) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ISA HAKIM(10874) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
       DESAI

                             Date : 19/01/2026

                              CAV ORDER

1.    The applicant-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

which is the original complainant, has preferred the

present        application     praying         for     cancellation            of

anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 who is

the original accused no.2 in the said complaint, pursuant

to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge of Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of

2025 on 12.06.2025.




                                 Page 1 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




2.    The complaint came to be instituted by the Senior

Intelligence O,icer-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

Surat, against respondent no.1 and other four accused

under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860, read with Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The     said          complaint   was       numbered      as      DRI.       F.

No.DRI/AZU/SRU/B/INV-11/2023.


3.    As per the prosecution case, speci7c information

was received by the complainant that, four persons

traveling by Air India Express :ight via Sharjah were

attempting to smuggle gold in India with the help of the

o,icials working in the arrival area of Immigration

Department at Surat Airport. Pursuant to the said

information, the said four individuals were intercepted

and during the examination of their luggage, 7ve white

coloured pouches containing gold in paste form weighing

10812.060 gms was recovered from the luggage of

Mohamed Sakib Mustak Ahmad Atashbajiwal, six white

coloured pouches containing gold in paste form weighing

13094.090             gms   and   nine     white   coloured        pouches

                                  Page 2 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                        CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




containing gold in paste form weighing 19631.130 gms

was recovered from the luggage from Uvesh Imtiyaz

Shaikh.


4.    During the course of panchnama, the CISF team at

the Airport had also recovered 4670 gms (approx) of gold

in paste form, which was found abandoned in the men’s

washroom at the immigration area of Surat Airport.


5.    During the course of investigation, it was revealed

that the respondent no.4 accused and other four co-

accused who were named in the complaint, had played an

active role in smuggling the gold in paste form.


6.    The respondent no.1-accused had 7led anticipatory

bail application before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge of Surat, vide Criminal Misc. Application No.4269

of 2025.        The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after

hearing the learned advocates for either sides, had

allowed the said application subject to conditions.




                             Page 3 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




7.    The applicant being aggrieved by the said order of

anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent no.1-

accused, has preferred the present application under

Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, for cancellation of the

said anticipatory bail.


8.    Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta on behalf of

the applicant who has forcefully argued that, though the

complainant had submitted written objections during the

hearing of Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not considered

the said objections. Mr.Gupta has drawn the attention of

the Court to para no.7 of the order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge of Surat in Criminal Misc.

Application No.4269 of 2025, and has submitted that, the

observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge do

not re:ect that the learned Judge had considered the

objections        which   were      7led       by   the      complainant.

According to Mr.Gupta, presuming that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that, the

objections 7led by the complainant did not carry any

                                 Page 4 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




weight or could not be accepted, he should have made

such observations in his order. Mr.Gupta has drawn the

attention of the Court to the fact that, the Joint Secretary

(COFEPOSA)            at   the   Central        Economic      Intelligence

Bureau, (COFEPOSA Wing, New Delhi), had passed

detention orders under the COFEPOSA, 1974, against the

respondent no.1 accused and others.                       However, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge had overlooked the

said fact also.


9.    Mr.Gupta has submitted that, the respondent no.1-

accused was one of the main accused and in spite of there

being enough culpable material re:ecting his involvement

in the crime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had

enlarged him on anticipatory bail.


10. In view of such facts, learned advocate Mr.Gupta has

submitted that, this Court should either allow this

application and cancel the bail granted to the respondent

no.1-accused or allow this application and quash the

order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in


                                  Page 5 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                              CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025, and direct

the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the bail

application afresh, considering the objections which were

7led by the complainant.


11. Heard learned advocate Mr.Deven Parikh appearing

with Mr.Isa Hakim with Mr.Ibrahim Hakim learned

advocates for respondent no.1, who has submitted that,

the complainant had not challenged any other bail orders

except the order of the respondent no.1-accused. There

are total 11 accused persons arraigned in the crime, who

have been either granted regular bail or anticipatory bail.

Mr.Parikh has further submitted that, the role of the

respondent            no.1-accused    pertains   to    7nancing          the

smuggled gold from Dubai through accused no.1-Salman

Ra7qbhai Penwala, and it was Salman Penwala who had

managed all a,airs with the respondent no.1-accused.

He was also in touch of the key members of syndicate and

had supervised the activity of every member and, had

developed         liaisoning   with     Shri   Parag    Dave       –    PSI.

Mr.Parikh has submitted that, after considering the

                                 Page 6 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




respondent            no.1-accused’s     such     role,    the      learned

Additional Sessions judge was pleased to allow his

anticipatory bail application.                 Mr.Parikh has further

submitted that, the issue of cancellation of bail rests on a

narrow compass and the legal and factual aspects so as to

consider the plea of cancellation of bail which is already

granted, are much less, than the aspects upon which the

bail is granted. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr.Parikh

has submitted that this application be dismissed.


12. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya appearing for

respondent no.2-State has submitted that, the Court

should remand the matter and let the learned Additional

Sessions Judge decide the bail application afresh, after

considering the objections which were 7led by the

complainant.


13. Considering            the   submissions        of     the      learned

advocates of either sides and the investigation papers

which have been annexed with the application, and more

particularly on perusing the order passed by the learned


                                 Page 7 of 9
 R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                     CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application

No.4269 of 2025, it does appear that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge has not mentioned anything

about the objections which were 7led by the complainant,

at the time of hearing of the bail application. Considering

the gravity of the o,ense and the allegations leveled

against the respondent no.1-accused, it deems 7t to this

Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.


14. Consequentially, the present application is hereby

allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of

2025 dated 12.06.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge is requested to

hear the said bail application afresh by considering the

objections 7led by the applicant and also, after giving

opportunity           to   either   sides         to   make    fresh       and/or

additional submissions, if required and if it deems 7t, at

the time of hearing of the bail application.


15. It is hereby made abundantly clear that, the order


                                    Page 8 of 9
   R/CR.MA/18593/2025                                                             CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026




passed by this Court to quash and set aside the order of

the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc.

Application No.4269 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025, is in

context with the said application to be heard afresh on its

own         merits            and        considering                  the        objections               of      the

applicant.                 By no stretch of imagination, it should be

considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that,

this Court is expecting the reversal of the decision passed

by him in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025 on

12.06.2025, unless the written objections 7led by the

applicant would merit a decision otherwise.


16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, the

matter is hereby remanded back in view of the above

terms.



                                                             (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
ANKIT SHAH


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT PRADIPKUMAR SHAH(HC01063), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 17:15:33




                                                      Page 9 of 9