SUBHASH HIRARAM KERARAM GODARA (BISHNOI)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                            ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 14757 of 2026
==========================================================
         SUBHASH HIRARAM KERARAM GODARA (BISHNOI)
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DINESHKUMAR M CHAUDHARY(8734) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL H PRAJAPATI(8350) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                          Date : 30/07/2026
                              ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-
State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for
regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191011250376 of
2025 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the
offences 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 behind the bars since 26.02.2026 and charge-sheet is
filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the
present applicant and he has been arraigned as an accused based on
the statement of co-accused though nothing is recovered from the
conscious possession of the present applicant and the co-accused
from whose conscious possession contraband was recovered has been
released on bail by the coordinate Bench and therefore, the applicant


                               Page 1 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




is required to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
opposed the present application on the ground that the present
applicant is the supplier and he has called for the contraband from
Uttar Pradesh and if released on bail then the possibility of tampering
with the evidence cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the
applicant is supplied the contraband through co-accused Rajeshwari
and from conscious possession of said Rajeshwari (accused No.2 as per
the FIR) and accused No.1, contraband mephedrone in commercial
quantity was recovered and therefore, even considering the rigors of
section 37 of the NDPS Act and since the applicant is hailing from
Rajasthan, applicant may not be released on bail since possibility of
flight risk of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Further, the applicant
is not entitled to claim parity since in the matter of co-accused, rigors
of section 37 of the NDPS Act were not taken into consideration.
Hence, it is requested that present application for regular bail looking
to the nature and gravity of the offence be dismissed.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement
of the accused in the alleged offence, 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 her abscondence; (iv) character


                                 Page 2 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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. Going
through the record, it appears that, (i) the present applicant is
arraigned as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused
however, no any evidence is collected to link the present applicant
with alleged offence; (ii) Not only that, nothing is recovered from the
conscious possession of the present applicant and the co-accused
from whose conscious possession, contraband is recovered is already
released by the coordinate Bench of this Court though the contraband
recovered was in commercial quantity and (iii) Rigors of section 37 of
the NDPS Act have not been discussed in the said order enlarging the
co-accused on bail. Hence, this Court is not blindly relying on the said
order. The said contraband substance mephedrone was supplied to
the present applicant by the co-accused. Considering the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is very difficult to presume that if the
applicant is released on bail, then he would not involve in commission
of similar type of offence. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala
etc. vs. Rajesh etc. reported in AIR 2020 SC 721, wherein considering
the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, it has been held
that since the offence involves recovery of the narcotic drug in excess
of its commercial quantity, the Court is required to record its
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
applicant is not guilty of such offence and that the applicant is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail and the Court is required to
record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is


                                Page 3 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




a sine qua non for grant of bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.
However, considering the allegations levelled against the present
applicant, applicant is the alleged supplier of 357 Gram 750 Milligram
of Mephedrone worth Rs.35,77,500/- which is recovered from the joint
possession of co-accused Kamlesh and Rajeshwari and they are
released on bail however, this Court is considering the present
application independently on its own merits vis-a-vis the role
attributed to the present applicant.

[6.1] When a specific query was put to the Investigating Officer Mr.
B.S. Jhala, PSI, Ahmedabad Crime Branch who remained present
before this Court during the course of hearing of present bail
application, as to what evidence has been collected against the
present applicant to connect him with the co-accused Nos.1 and 2, the
IO has failed to reply and then, upon receiving updates from his Writer
/ Constable through learned APP, he has submitted that CDR is
available and mobile phone of accused is also seized. When second
query was put to him to show the CDR and contact details with co-
accused, he again failed to point out any material with regard to
collection of such evidence and he has submitted that through
whatsapp and online payment is made and chats are deleted from the
mobile phone. In aforesaid background, specific another query as to
whether mobile phone is sent to the FSL to retrieve such deleted
chats? is posed to the said IO has shown ignorance and then replied,
he was not aware and then subsequently replied that mobile phone is
not sent to the FSL for the purpose of investigation. Thus, perusing
the investigation papers, this Court is of considered opinion that, it is
very sorry state of affair that the Investigating Officer, who is working
in Crime Branch, is not conversant with the investigation papers and
has failed miserably in investigating the offence effectively and to


                                Page 4 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




assist the Court through learned APP also.

[6.2] This Court is of the considered view that fair trial and fair
investigation are part of constitutional rights guaranteed under
Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to say
that every offence is against the State and it is the duty of the State to
ensure that every investigation conducted by police must not be
motivated and reckless. The Investigating Officer’s act ought to be in
due obedience to the law. The accused has the right to demand a fair
trial and at the same time the victim has an equally important right to
a fair trial and impartial and fair investigation. Impartiality and an
unbiased investigation are essential for criminal trial. The minimum
requirement of rule of law is that the investigation must be fair,
transparent and judicious. The investigating agency cannot be
permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner
so as to take away the basic fundamental right of the accused who as
per the law is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty. At the same
time a victim, would equally be entitled to a fair investigation.
Defective or tainted investigation tends to shake the faith reposed by
the members of the society. A tainted investigation would curtail
freedom i.e. right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Fair and transparent investigation is the
precursor to fair trial. The expression “fair and proper investigation” in
criminal jurisprudence mainly has two imperatives. Firstly, that
investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with
law; and secondly, the entire emphasis is to bring out the truth of the
case before the court of competent jurisdiction ensuring that the
guilty are punished. The Investigating Officer is a kingpin of the
Criminal Justice delivery system. The investigation team heading for
the investigation of serious crimes must not succumb themselves to


                                 Page 5 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




any kind of pressures or temptation.

[6.3] Further, there is nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered from the present applicant and applicant is behind the bars
since 28.02.2026. So far as the apprehension of the learned APP as
regards flight risk of the present applicant since he is resident of
Rajasthan is concerned, same can be taken care of by imposing
stringent condition.

[6.4] Further, 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.

[7.0] 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 fit 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.11191011250376 of 2025
registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City on executing a
personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with



                                      Page 6 of 8
   R/CR.MA/14757/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




ONE LOCAL 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;

    (c)     surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

    (d)     not leave the country 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 UIDAI, present address of his residence at
            Rajasthan, contact number and email ID to the Investigating
            Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the
            bond and shall not change the same 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.

[8.0] 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.

[9.0] 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.




                                   Page 7 of 8
       R/CR.MA/14757/2026                                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




[10.0]            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.

[11.0]            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 30/07/2026 14:30:00




                                                  Page 8 of 8