High Court of Gujarat
ALIMAMAD @ ANVAR PIRMAMAD KHALIFAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- DIVYESH A JOSHI
Holding
The Court held that, in the present facts, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the charge‑sheet.
Summary
The petitioner, Alimamd @ Anvar Pirmamad Khalifa, was arrested on 20 July 2023 after police seized contraband from his premises and a charge‑sheet was filed. He has remained in custody while co‑accused were released on bail, and the trial court has not examined any of the 22 witnesses listed in the charge‑sheet. The petitioner filed a successive regular bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC, arguing that his prolonged incarceration without trial warrants relief. The State opposed, contending that the merits had already been considered and the offence is grave, but conceded the unusual circumstances. Relying on precedents (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI) and the fact that the investigation is complete, the High Court held that bail could be granted with conditions, and ordered his release on regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether a successive regular bail can be granted after the filing of a charge‑sheet when the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged contraband offence preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
bailsuccessive bailcharge-sheetCriminal Procedure Codetrial delaycontrabandGujarat High Court
Judgment
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL
- AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6138 of 2026
==========================================================
ALIMAMD @ ANVAR PIRMAMAD KHALIFA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 06/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of
Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.
2. The present successive application is filed
under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular
bail in connection with C.R.No.11205013230361 of
2023 registered with Mankuva Police Station,
Kachchh for commission of offence mentioned in
the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli appearing on behalf
of the applicant submits that considering the
nature of the offence, the applicant may be
enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
conditions. He further submits that this is the
successive bail application and since the Court
was not inclined to entertain the earlier
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
application, which was filed after submission of
charge-sheet, the same was withdrawn by the
applicant. He submits that as per the case of
the prosecution, the members of police party
raided the premises of the applicant on
20.07.2023 and seized contraband article and on
the very same day, FIR has been registered and
applicant has been apprehended and since then
applicant is behind the bars. He further submits
that pursuant to the registration of the FIR,
investigation commenced and co-accused i.e. the
prospective purchaser and seller of the said
contraband article were arrested by the IO
concerned. He submits that thereafter charge-
sheet came to be filed against the applicant and
so far as co-accused are concerned,
supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed
against them. He submits that except the present
applicant, co-accused have been enlarged on
bail. He submits that there is no past
antecedent against the applicant. He submits
that the learned trial Court has consolidated
the cases of the co-accused and tried all the
three cases. However, as the co-accused did not
remain present and did not cooperate during the
course of trial, the learned Trial Court issued
NBW against the co-accused and therefore not a
single witness has been examined by the
prosecution. The prosecuting agency has put
reliance upon 22 witnesses. Thus, considering
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
the period of incarceration of the petitioner,
he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable
terms and conditions. He submits that the
learned Trial Court can segregate the case of
the co-accused who did not remain present during
the course of trial but for indefinite period
applicant cannot put behind the bars.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has opposed grant of regular
bail looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence. He submits that this is the successive
bail application and therefore applicant cannot
argue the matter on merits as the merit has
already been considered by this Court at the
time of earlier application and applicant has to
show some change of circumstances. However, he
has fairly conceded before this Court that
applicant is behind the bars since 20.07.2023
and on account of non-cooperation of the co-
accused, the learned Trial Court is not in a
position to examine any witness and therefore
NBW came to be issued against the said co-
accused and it is true that applicant cannot put
behind the bars for indefinite period. Thus,
looking to the peculiar facts of the present
case, he submits that appropriate order may be
passed.
5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for further
reasoned order.
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers of the investigation and considered the
allegations levelled against the applicant and
the role played by the applicant. This Court has
also considered the following aspects:
(i) the investigation is concluded and charge-
sheet is filed;
(ii) applicant is in jail since 20.07.2023;
(iii)the co-accused i.e. prospective purchaser
and seller have been enlarged on bail;
(iv) the prosecuting agency has put reliance
upon 22 witnesses in the charge-sheet, however,
on account of non-cooperation on the part of co-
accused, the learned trial Court is not in a
position to proceed further with the trial and
out of 22 witnesses, not a single witness is
examined by the learned Trial Court.
(v) looking to the period of incarceration of
the applicant and in view of the peculiar facts
of the present case, the application deserves
consideration.
7. This Court has also 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 as
well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported
in (2022)10 SCC 51.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
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 fit
case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.
9. Hence, the present application is allowed and
the applicant is ordered to be released on
regular bail in connection with
C.R.No.11205013230361 of 2023 registered with
Mankuva Police Station, Kachchh, on executing a
personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
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 injuries 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 Judge
concerned;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police
Station on alternate Monday of every
English calendar month for a period of six
months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to
the Investigating Officer and also to the
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/6138/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
Court at the time of execution of the bond
and shall not change the residence without
prior permission of this Court;
10. 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 Judge concerned will be free to issue
warrant or take appropriate action in the
matter. 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 trial, the trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observations of preliminary
nature qua the evidence at this stage made by
this Court while enlarging the applicant on
bail.
12. The present application stands allowed
accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LAVKUMAR JAYANTBHAI JANI(HC00210), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 18:15:01
Page 6 of 6
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search