JAGDISHKUMAR @ JITU NATHABHAI SUTREJA (AS PER NAME LOWER COURT ORDER)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court held that regular bail should be granted to the applicant, as the evidence does not warrant pre‑trial detention.
Summary
The applicant, Jagdishkumar Sutreja, filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after a charge‑sheet was filed for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He claimed innocence, stating that he was not found in possession of the contraband and that the case against him rested solely on co‑accused statements and a CDR. The court examined the bail criteria, noting the lack of material evidence linking the applicant to the seized mephedrone, the satisfaction of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant's past antecedents which were not of a similar nature. Relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing bail as a rule and personal liberty under Article 21, the court concluded that pre‑trial detention would amount to a de facto conviction. Consequently, the court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety and imposed standard conditions for the applicant’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for offences under the NDPS Act after a charge‑sheet has been filed.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement, based solely on co‑accused statements and a CDR, justifies continued pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the interests of justice and prevent tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Acts. 22(c), s. 29, s. 37(1)(b), s. 8(c)
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/13970/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 13970 of 2026
==========================================================
JAGDISHKUMAR @ JITU NATHABHAI SUTREJA (AS PER NAME LOWER
COURT ORDER)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HITESH P PRAJAPATI(12819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VINAY VISHEN, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/08/2026
ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] The present application is ;led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11203038250403 of 2025 registered with
Mangrol Police Station, District Junagadh for the oCences under Sections
8(C), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the oCence and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. He therefore submits
that, considering the nature of the oCence, 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 oCence.
[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.MA/13970/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
accused in the alleged oCence, 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 applicant is not found in conscious possession of the
contraband and is arraigned only on the basis of statement of co-
accused and CDR and it is alleged that applicant facilitated accused
No.1 to purchase / procure the alleged contraband i.e. Mephedrone
which is admittedly in commercial quantity however, no any material
is collected to suggest involvement of the present applicant so far
as role of providing aid to accused Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, who
were found in conscious possession of the contraband and even
otherwise, investigation is over and charge-sheet is ;led;
(2) Considering the evidence collected during the investigation, rigors
of section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satis;ed;
(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 26.03.2026;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/13970/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
(5) Though the applicant is having past antecedent, he is presumed
to be innocent till proven guilty but he is not having any similar
nature of past antecedent;
(6) 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
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 ;t
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.11203038250403 of 2025 registered with Mangrol Police Station,
District Junagadh on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-;ve 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;
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/13970/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the territory of State of Gujarat 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
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 oCence 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 inOuenced 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 19/08/2026 17:55:47
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.