PARVINBANU IBRAHIMBHAI SULTAN MAMREJ KURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/8187/2026                              ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                  CHARGESHEET) NO. 8187 of 2026

==========================================================
           PRAVINBANU IBRAHIMBHAI SULTAN MAMREJ KURESHI
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUSAIB I SHAIKH(10565) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                              Date : 24/04/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


1.      Heard learned advocate Mr. Musaib Shaikh appearing on behalf of
the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta
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. 11191027240279 of
2024 registered with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.


4.      Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the
role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the


                                  Page 1 of 5
        R/CR.MA/8187/2026                               ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026




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 aspects are considered:-


 (i)       The offence being very serious inasmuch as to have transacted in
           contraband Mephedrone weighing 72 grams – commercial quantity
           and whereas it would appear that the present applicant was the
           person from whom the commercial quantity of the contraband was
           recovered.
 (ii)      While the learned advocate Mr. Shaikh would draw the attention of
           this Court to the observations in thee FIR itself, which according to
           the learned advocate would reveal that the present applicant had
           acted as carrier only for a sum of Rs.5000/-, more particularly
           submission being as per the FIR that the sender of the contraband
           was one Mustaq Gulamrasul Shaikh, who was uncle of the present



                                     Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.MA/8187/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026




         applicant and the proposed receiver was one Firdoshbanu, who was
         an aunt of the present applicant .
(iii) Learned advocate would also try and submit that both the senders
         and proposed receiver have been enlarged on regular bail by the
         learned trial Court as well as learned Coordinate Bench of this Court.
         Learned advocate would submit that considering the role of the
         present applicant as a carrier and considering that the co-accused
         have been released, this Court may consider and release the present
         applicant.
(iv) While this Court is not impressed with the submissions made by the
         learned advocate, more particularly, to this Court, it would appear
         that the present applicant being the person from whom the
         contraband was found, the role attributed to the present applicant
         stands completely different than the role attributed to the co-
         accused, who have been released as observed hereinabove.
(v)      As regards the allegation of the applicant only being a carrier, from
         the FIR clearly appears that the said version is one given by the
         present applicant.
(vi) Having observed hereinabove, yet this Court has considered the fact
         that present applicant is a lady accused, having three minor children
         and whereas it also appears that one child of the present applicant is
         with the present applicant in judicial custody.
         It also appears that the applicant is in custody since 07.06.2024 i.e.
         almost a period of 22 months.
(vii) This Court has also noticed that the present applicant does not have
         any antecedent.
(viii) Considering the above, while it prima facie appears to this Court that
         the offence is very serious and the role of the present applicant as


                                    Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.MA/8187/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026




         the person in conscious possession of the contraband cannot be
         ignored, yet considering that the applicant does not have any
         antecedents, being a lady accused, therefore, twin requirement under
         Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act being fulfilled, this Court is
         inclined to consider this application, albeit, with appropriate
         safeguards.


        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.

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.11191027240279 of 2024 registered with Karanj Police Station,
Ahmedabad, 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


                                    Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.MA/8187/2026                                                              ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026




      Sessions Court concerned;

      [e] furnish the present 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 fortnight for a period of six months and once a
      month till the trial concludes 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 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)
Y.N. VYAS
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: YAGNESH NARENDRABHAI VYAS(HC00207), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/04/2026 11:09:09




                                                      Page 5 of 5