SAHILSHA @IRFANSHA CHINGISHA @AMINSHA BANWAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                               ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 14532 of 2026
==========================================================
       SAHILSHA @IRFANSHA CHINGISHA @AMINSHA BANWA
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                          Date : 10/08/2026
                              ORDER

      RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the
applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR
No.11203068260079 of 2026 registered with Vanthali Police
Station, District Junagadh for the oBence punishable under Sections
103(1), 115(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNS”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the applicant,
learned advocate Mr. Soeb R. Bhoharia for the original complainant
and learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat.

[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the oBence.
The applicant’s presence was not noticed in the CCTV footage and


                               Page 1 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




even otherwise, charge-sheet is Fled and nothing is required to be
recovered or discovered at the instance of the present applicant. He
has further submitted that present is a case of over-implication and
applicant has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged oBence. He
has further submitted that two witnesses have stated that applicant
was only standing at the place of oBence but has not played any
active part in the crime and has not abetted the oBence in any
manner. He has further submitted that one compartmentalized
version has come forward from the two witnesses who have stated
before the police authority that the applicant was merely present at
the scene of oBence however, the investigating agency has falsely
implicated the present applicant. The applicant is not having any past
antecedent and hence, he has requested to allow the present
application by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application
by submitting that present is a serious oBence and name of applicant
is mentioned in the FIR and even during investigation, two witnesses
including one injured witness has mentioned about the involvement of
the present applicant. He has further submitted that in the Frst
medico-legal certiFcate issued by CHC, Vanthli, name of present
applicant is stated and after one day the injured was shifted to
Junagadh Hospital and thus, evidence of injured witness is higher
footing since two witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution and considering the presence and involvement of the
present applicant at the scene of oBence, applicant acting as abettor
is also proved and even the applicant has made an assault to the
deceased and in the post-mortem report, six injuries have been found
on the body of the deceased. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the
present application.


                               Page 2 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




[5.0] Adopting the submissions made by the learned APP, learned
advocate Mr. Soheb R. Bhoharia appearing for the original
complainant has also vehemently opposed the present application by
Fling the objections against the present application and has further
submitted that the complaint is Fled immediately after taking the
treatment. In the Frst certiFcate issued by CHC, Vanthali, name of the
present applicant is also given. Further, the applicant is taking undue
advantage of two witnesses not having mentioned his name but other
two witnesses amongst whom one is injured eye-witness have
supported the case of prosecution and even otherwise, appreciation
of evidence at the stage of deciding the bail application is not
permissible. Two eye-witnesses including one injured has supported
the case of prosecution and four persons have stated before the
authority about presence of the applicant. Thus, involvement of
applicant is proved. Imran and Shoaib also stated about presence of
applicant and Shakeel is injured witness and Salim Samadsha has also
stated about the presence of applicant and thus, the active
participation of the applicant is proved. Further, due to six injuries
including head injury sustained, the deceased succumbed to injuries.
Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[6.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the investigation papers.

[7.0] Perusing the investigation papers and record, it appears that
the case of prosecution is to the eBect that on 02.02.2026 at about
11:00 p.m., while the complainant and his younger son Rahish were
present at their premises, Rahish received a telephonic call from his
friend Imranbhai Amadbhai Jethwa informing him that his elder
brother Tajim had been assaulted at the Dargah of Bhalaysha Pir near



                               Page 3 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




Vanthali Railway Station pursuant to which, the complainant and his
son Rahish proceeded to the said Dargah on their motorbike and on
reaching at the spot, they observed accused RaFqsha Kasamsha
Sarvadi armed with a wooden stick, followed by his nephew Akramsha
Hanifsha Sarvadi, his son Arbaazsha RaFqsha Sarvadi and present
applicant, all Keeing from the scene of oBence. Upon reaching the
Dargah, the complainant found his son Tajim lying in a pool of blood,
grievously injured and bleeding profusely from the head and was
unable to speak. It further appears that an iron rod and a knife were
lying nearby and several persons including Razakbhai Jethwa were
present at the spot and another individual Shakeel, had sustained
injuries on his head and leg. As per the case of prosecution, when
deceased Tajim alongwith Salim Memubbhai Sarvadi, Imran Amadbhai
Jethwa, Shoaib Amadbhai Mangrolia and Shakeel were seated at the
Dargah, the accused persons suddenly arrived armed with iron rods,
knives, and wooden clubs and without any provocation, accused No.1
RaFqsha struck deceased Tajim on the head with a club causing him to
collapse, whereafter all four accused assaulted him indiscriminately
with the weapons in their respective possession, inKicting severe
injuries and Shakeel, who attempted to intervene, was also assaulted
and injured Salim, Imran, and Shoaib Ked from the spot under the fear.

[7.1] It appears that the motive behind the incident is attributed to
the love relationship between the deceased Tajim and Iqra, daughter
of accused RaFqsha, which was going since past Fve to six months and
even on an earlier occasion, accused RaFqsha had threatened to kill
Tajim, leading him to consume poison, for which a complaint had been
lodged at Vanthali Police Station.

[7.2] Perusing the role attributed to the present applicant, it is the



                                Page 4 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                              ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




case of prosecution that applicant’s presence is found at the spot. Two
eye-witnesses namely (1) Shakeel Rajak Jethva and (2) Salimsha
Mehboobsha Shamadar were present at the time of occurrence of
oBence and they have categorically stated in their respective
statements before the police that alongwith deceased Tajim and
other friends namely Imran and Shoaib, they were sitting at Bhalaysha
Pir’s Dargah and at that time four accused persons came armed with
deadly weapons like steel pipe / rod, knife and wooden logs and
applicant was armed with steel pipe / rod. Accused RaFksha caused
head injury and other four accused caused injuries with respective
weapons and while one witness tried to intervene, he also received
injury. Shakeel Rajak Jethva who is injured witness has also given the
name of present applicant and also stated that present applicant
made an assault to the deceased with iron pipe and to other two
witnesses. Further, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests six
injuries within 24 hours by hard and blunt object or surface.

[7.3] Prior to date of oBence, one complaint came to be registered
with Vanthali Police Station on 16.09.2025 in connection of the
alleged aBair of daughter of accused No.1 and deceased and thus, the
motive is clearly revealed. Prima facie involvement of the applicant is
found and two witnesses including one injured eye-witness has stated
about the presence of applicant at the time and scene of oBence.
Statement of injured witness is on higher footing and even otherwise,
at the time of deciding bail application, appreciation of evidence is not
permissible and even otherwise, merely because two witnesses have
not stated about the overt act of the present applicant but have not
denied presence of applicant at the scene of oBence and when
applicant is arraigned as an accused in aid of section 54 of the BNS, it
is needless to say that if abettor is present at the time of oBence then


                                Page 5 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                                ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




as a consequence, he shall be deemed to have committed the oBence.
Hence, the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the
applicant as regards compartmentalized version or to contradict
witness versus witness is not acceptable at the stage of deciding bail
application. Even, while appreciating the evidence also, to contradict a
witness with another witness is not permissible.

[7.4] This court has also kept in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406, wherein it is held as under :

         “13. ………. Needless to say, ling of the charge-sheet does
         not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the
         prosecution. On the contrary, ling of the charge-sheet
         establishes that after due investigation the investigating
         agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet
         for trial of the accused persons.”

      Further, one more aspect which is required to be considered is that
so far concept of the bail is concerned, purpose of the bail is not a
punitive but a preventive. While granting bail, the Court has to take care
the availability of the accused at the time of trial and second important
aspect is that possibility of the tampering with an evidence of the
prosecution. It prima facie appears that there is a chance of tampering
and hampering with an evidence. This Court is of the considered opinion
that if the present accused is enlarged on bail, then the possibility cannot
be ruled out that accused will misuse his liberty and tamper with
witnesses or evidence of prosecution.


[8.0] Further, it is needless to say that at the time of deciding bail
application Court has not to appreciate the evidence and is a matter of
evidence. This is not a case where applicant is falsely implicated
keeping the grudge or to settle the score. Considering the facts and


                                 Page 6 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14532/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




circumstances of the case, gravity of oBence, severity of punishment
as well as the law laid down in cases of of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.
Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Mahipal Vs. Rajesh
Kumar reported in 2020 (2) SCC 118, this Court do not think it
appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused more
particularly considering the role attributed to the accused and
considering the involvement in such serious oBence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC with life or death sentence. It is also apposite to
refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC)
974 and Aqeel Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 499, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed thus:

       “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a
       matter involving a serious criminal o&ence, the Court must consider
       relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the
       accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
       committed, the gravity of the o&ence, the role attributed to the
       accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
       tampering of the witnesses and repeating the o&ence, if the accused
       are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in
       the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings
       and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
       releasing the accused on bail.”



[8.1] Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in
(2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph
34 as under:

       “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
       accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
       punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
       circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
       securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
       the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State
       and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
       purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable


                                     Page 7 of 8
       R/CR.MA/14532/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




           grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court
           dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
           genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
           produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
           this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
           reasonable doubt.”

          At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 is also required to be referred to
wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm
of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can
act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is
jeopardized.

[9.0] Considering seriousness of oBence and involvement of accused,
present application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

[10.0]            Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial since
the applicant is an under-trial prisoner for which the applicant shall
also cooperate.


[11.0]            It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide
the case of the applicant on its own merits without being inKuenced
by the observations made in the present order. Rule is hereby
discharged.



                                                                  (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 10/08/2026 16:26:32




                                                   Page 8 of 8