High Court of Gujarat
CHUNILAL AMEDARAM HUDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- NIKHIL S KARIEL
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail in the present case.
Summary
The applicant, a driver of a vehicle from which contraband liquor was seized, filed an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail after the charge‑sheet was filed for offences under the Prohibition Act (sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(B), 98(2), 81, 83). The court noted that the applicant was neither the owner nor the ultimate recipient of the liquor, had no prior criminal record, and that any risk of absconding could be mitigated by imposing conditions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the court held that the nature of the allegations did not preclude bail. Consequently, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with a surety and imposed several conditions, including surrender of passport, residence reporting, and monthly police verification. The order also directed that the trial court not be influenced by these preliminary observations.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted after the filing of a charge‑sheet for offences under the Prohibition Act.
- Whether the applicant’s role as a driver and lack of prior record justify bail despite the nature of the contraband liquor offence.
- Whether the risk of the applicant absconding can be adequately addressed through bail conditions.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Prohibition Act — s. 116(B), 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- charge sheet
- Prohibition Act
- contraband liquor
- flight risk
- bail conditions
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
R/CR.MA/395/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 395 of 2026
==========================================================
CHUNILAL AMEDARAM HUDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAURABH Y CHANDE(9035) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 09/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Saurabh Chande appearing
on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of
the respondent-State.
3. The applicant has filed this application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR
being C.R. No. 11189002250862/2025 registered with Maliya
Miyana Police Station, Morbi for the offence punishable under
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/395/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(B), 98(2), 81, 83 of the Prohibition
Act.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of
the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on
regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-
sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further
contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by
all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if
released on bail.
5. As against the same, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has
vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP
has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the
role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from
the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in
favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/395/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
aspects are considered:-
i. While allegation against the applicant being that he was
a driver of the vehicle from which the contraband-liquor
had been recovered, yet, it would appear that the applicant
was neither the owner of the contraband-liquor nor the
ultimate recipient of the same.
ii. The fact of the applicant not having any antecedent.
iii. Apprehension of the learned APP that the applicant is
not being resident of the State of Gujarat, if released, he
may abscond, could be allayed by imposing suitable
conditions.
This Court has taken into consideration the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
[2012] 1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
applicant in the First Information Report, 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.
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/395/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant
is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R.
registered as C.R. No. 11189002250862/2025 registered with
Maliya Miyana Police Station, Morbi, on executing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a
week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission
of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish the proposed address of residence to the I.O.
and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond
and shall not change the residence without prior intimation
to the I.O.;
[f] mark presence once a month for a period of six months
before the concerned police station.
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/395/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
9. 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 Court concerned will be free to take appropriate
action in the matter.
10. 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. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be
influenced by any observations of this Court which are of
preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of
considering the application of the applicant for being released
on regular bail.
12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/01/2026 15:00:09
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.