High Court of Gujarat
KISHANBHAI @ AJAYBHAI S/O HASMUKHBHAI DABHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- NIKHIL S KARIEL
Holding
The court held that, on the facts, the applicant is entitled to regular bail.
Summary
Kishanbhai, a 21‑year‑old, was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act and IPC 103(1) for a fatal incident that allegedly occurred during a village function attended by about 20,000 people. He applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.N. Act after the charge‑sheet was filed, arguing that continued detention served no purpose and he was willing to comply with conditions. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s alleged role. The Court noted the lack of any eyewitness, the hazy circumstances, the applicant’s young age and prolonged pre‑trial custody, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. Concluding that the case was suitable for the exercise of discretion, the Court granted regular bail subject to a bond and several conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted after the filing of a charge‑sheet for offences under the B.N.N. Act, IT Act and IPC 103(1).
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the applicant’s alleged role justify denial of bail.
- Whether the lack of eyewitnesses, the applicant’s age and length of pre‑trial detention warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 3(5), 483, 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c), 66(d)
Subjects
- regular bail
- charge‑sheet
- discretionary bail
- B.N.N. Act
- IT Act
- IPC 103
- lack of witnesses
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 5225 of 2026
==========================================================
KISHANBHAI @ AJAYBHAI S/O KASMUKHBHAI DABHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHERIA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Darshan Varandani appearing
on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Katheria 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
Page 1 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being
C.R. No. 11204041251017 of 2025 registered with Mahemdabad
Police Station, District: Kheda for the offence punishable under
Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.N. Act and
under Section 66(c) and 66(d) of Information Technology 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.
Page 2 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
aspects are considered:-
i. Though the FIR is very serious inasmuch as the allegation
levelled in the FIR is that offence punishable under Section
103(1) of the IPC and whereas, the present applicant is the
only accused in the said offence.
ii. It would appear in this regard that though the incident is
stated to have happened in the presence of around 20,000
persons, that is on the night of ‘Sharad Poonam’, when a
function had been organized in a village and whereas, it would
appear that the investigating authority could not find out a
single person who had witnessed the incident in question.
iii. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant
and his brother are alleged to have started a quarrel during
the garba night and whereas the organizers, along with some
other persons had caught hold of the present applicant and his
brother and handed over to the police personnel present there,
on bandobast stating the present applicant and his brother
were creating mischief. It later appears that the crowd as well
as the police party seems to have realized that somebody had
been inflicted with a knife injury and the investigation inter
alia revealing the role of applicant basis an alleged confession
by the present applicant to his brother.
iv. While learned APP would stress upon the recovery of the
knife at the behest of the present applicant and some blood
Page 3 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
stains found on the pants of the present applicant yet,
investigation would also prima faice reveal that there was an
altercation going on and whereas, the deceased was also a part
of the group, which were fighting and whereas, under such
circumstances, merely because of some blood stains found on
the clothes of the present applicant, the applicant could not be
attributed the fatal blows.
v. The recovery of the knife also to this Court may could
not be the only reason, more particularly since the incident
happened in the midst of a crowd of around 20,000 people
and whereas, no one is stated to have witnessed the incident
in question.
vi. The circumstance to this Court being too hazy to
continue the present applicant in custody for the offence in
question. Discretion is required to be exercised.
vii. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant
is a 21 year old person and in custody since 09.10.2025 and
charge-sheet having been filed by the investigating officer.
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.
Page 4 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
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.
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. 11204041251017 of 2025 registered with
Mahemdabad Police Station, District: Kheda, on executing a
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;
[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 present address of residence to the I.O. and
Page 5 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
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] not to enter District:Kheda for a period of six months
excepting for marking presence;
[g] mark presence once in a month for a period of six
months before the concerned police station.
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
Page 6 of 7
R/CR.MA/5225/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
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)
NAIR SMITA V./22-DB
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SMITA VINU NAIR(HC00186), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/03/2026 10:24:18
Page 7 of 7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.