MANUBHA @ VANRAJSINH BACHUBHA ZALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                   CHARGESHEET) NO. 15095 of 2026
==========================================================
              MANUBHA @ VANRAJSINH BACHUBHA ZALA & ANR.
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                      Date : 06/07/2026

                                    ORDER

1)       RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2)       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.I-52 of 2015 registered with Thara
         Police Station, District : Banaskantha, for the offence under
         Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of the IPC.
3)       Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that
         applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
         offence. It is submitted that the present applicants had earlier been
         released on bail. However, at the stage of recording the further
         statements of the accused persons under the relevant provisions of
         law, the applicants remained absent before the learned Sessions
         Court. Consequently, a non-bailable warrant came to be issued
         against them, and the applicants were taken into judicial custody on
         27th April 2026.He therefore submits that, considering the nature of
         the offence, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by
         imposing suitable conditions.
4)       Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
         opposed the present application and and requested to dismiss the
         present application considering the nature and gravity of offence.




                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




5)      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 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)      I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
        respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Further,
        following aspects have been considered:
            (1)     Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
            (2)     applicants are arrested on 27.04.2026;
            (3)      It appears that the FIR being C.R. No. I-52 of 2015 came to
                    be    registered   with      Thara   Police   Station,    District
                    Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections
                    323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of the IPC. After completion of
                    the investigation, the case was culminated into Sessions
                    Case No. 79 of 2016, which is presently pending for
                    adjudication. The present applicants had earlier been
                    released on bail. However, at the stage of recording the
                    further statements of the accused persons under the
                    relevant provisions of law, the applicants remained absent
                    before the learned Sessions Court. Consequently, a non-
                    bailable warrant came to be issued against them, and the
                    applicants were taken into judicial custody on 27th April


                                       Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




               2026.
               (3.1)    Thereafter,      the   applicants    preferred        an
               application for regular bail before the learned Sessions
               Court. The said application came to be rejected by the
               learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha,
               without examining the merits of the case, primarily on the
               ground that the Sessions Case, which is nearly ten years
               old, had reached the stage of recording the further
               statements of the accused.
               (3.2)    It appears that the further statements have since
               been recorded and the matter has been kept for
               pronouncement of the order on 10th June 2026. However,
               the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that
               there were allegations that certain members of the High
               Court staff might attempt to influence the proceedings,
               which, if true, would amount to serious misconduct and
               could constitute contempt. The learned Judge further
               recorded that she was unable to take any action or report
               the matter to the concerned authority of the High Court
               and expressed her inability to proceed in the matter under
               such circumstances.
               (3.3)    The learned Judge also recorded that she had
               addressed a communication dated 27th May 2026 to the
               learned Principal District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur,
               seeking appropriate administrative guidance. However, as
               no response had been received till 16th June 2026, and
               since the post of the learned Principal District Judge was
               lying vacant, she found herself unable to keep the bail
               application pending indefinitely.     The learned        Judge
               observed that any further delay in deciding the application
               might invite allegations against her. Accordingly, without
               entering into the merits of the case, she rejected the bail


                                Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




                    application.
            (4)     In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that
                    the matter concerns the personal liberty of the applicants.
                    Since the learned Sessions Judge has not adjudicated the
                    bail application on its merits, this Court, being vested with
                    concurrent jurisdiction, is competent to examine the
                    request independently. Moreover, considering that the
                    only allegation against the applicants is their failure to
                    remain present before the learned Sessions Court for
                    recording of their further statements which have now
                    admittedly been recorded and further considering that the
                    applicants had earlier been released on bail, this Court is of
                    the considered opinion that the present application
                    deserves to be allowed, subject to the imposition of
                    stringent and appropriate conditions.

7)      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)      In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
        of the allegations made against the applicants 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



                                      Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




   the applicants on regular bail. Hence, the present application is
   allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on regular bail in
   connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-52 of 2015 registered with Thara
   Police Station, District : Banaskantha on executing a personal bond
   of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) each 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;
       (c)     surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
       (d)     not to leave State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
               Trial Court concerned;
       (e)     mark presence before the concerned Police Station once a
               month for a period of three months between 10.00 am to
               2.00 p.m.;
       (f)     furnish the Aadhar card, email ID/present address of his
               residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court
               at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change
               the residence/contact number without prior permission of
               Trial Court;
       (g)     The applicants shall file an undertaking that they shall
               regularly attend the Court proceedings. In the event of their
               absence, the applicants shall, through their advocate, mark
               their presence and, if the proceedings are conducted in
               their absence, they shall not dispute the same.
       (h)     The learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to impose any
               other appropriate condition(s), if found necessary, for
               securing and ensuring the presence of the applicants during
               the course of the trial.


                                  Page 5 of 6
       R/CR.MA/15095/2026                                               ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026




 9)       The authorities will release the applicants only if they are 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.
 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 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 applicants on bail.
 12)      Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
          permitted.




                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
 KUMAR ALOK

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ALOK KUMAR(HC01091), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/07/2026 18:52:56




                                              Page 6 of 6