NIKULBHAI JAYESHBHAI TALPADAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that, on the facts, regular bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Nikulbhai Jayeshbai Talpada, applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Gujarat Police Act. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges, which include assault and other violent offences. The Court examined factors such as the nature of the accusation, the applicant's lack of prior criminal record, the absence of any material to be recovered, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor), the Court concluded that pre‑trial detention would amount to a de facto conviction. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond with several conditions, directing the applicant to comply with reporting and conduct requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted under Section 483 BNSS for the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Gujarat Police Act.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences justify denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean antecedent record and lack of recoverable material support the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 109(1), s. 117(2), s. 118(1), s. 351(3), s. 352, s. 54
- Gujarat Police Acts. 135
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/18994/2026 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 18994 of 2026
==========================================================
NIKULBHAI JAYESHBHAI TALPADA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DESHAL A MODI(12518) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEHULKUMAR K SATHWARA(9111) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KANVA ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 14/08/2026
ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] The present application is 9led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11204045260234 of 2026 registered with
Nadiad Rural Police Station, District Kheda for the oBences punishable
under Sections 109(1), 117(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police
Act.
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the oBence and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. He therefore submits
that, considering the nature of the oBence, 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 oBence.
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.MA/18994/2026 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026
[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged oBence, 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 against the applicant is that he inJicted scythe blow
on the right ear and neck portion of the injured as well as on right
hand of the complainant however, now the injured persons are out
of danger and discharged from the hospital and even otherwise,
investigation is over and charge-sheet is 9led;
(2) Applicant is behind the bars since 19.05.2026;
(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(4) The applicant is not having any past antecedent ;
(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
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/18994/2026 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026
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 9t
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.11204045260234 of 2026 registered with Nadiad Rural Police Station,
District Kheda on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-9ve 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
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
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/18994/2026 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026
Investigating ONcer 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 oBence 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.)
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 14/08/2026 14:50:45
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.