VAJID @BHURA IKRAM KURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/212/2026                         ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                    CHARGESHEET) NO. 212 of 2026
==========================================================
                     VAJID @BHURA IKRAM KURESHI
                                   Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
   CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                              Date : 20/01/2026
                               ORAL ORDER

1.     RULE.        Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.


2.     The present successive bail application is filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11206061230209 of 2023 registered with Santhal Police
Station, Mahesana for the offences punishable under Sections
395, 397, 450, 342, 323, 465, 468, 471, 201, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 25(1-b) (a) of the
Arms Act and Section 135 of the GP Act.

3.     Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant has no connection with the alleged
offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has been
in judicial custody since 20.12.2023, and till date there has been
no substantial progress in the trial. The other co-accused, who
have past antecedents and whose role is more severe than that
of the present applicant, have already been released on bail.
Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the
present applicant. It is further submitted that, considering the


                                Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.MA/212/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail
by imposing suitable conditions.

4.     Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
has opposed the grant of regular bail, looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the present applicant,
in   collusion          with   the    co-accused,     illegally      entered         the
complainant’s            house,      threatened      and      intimidated            the
complainant by brandishing a revolver and a knife, and forcibly
took away valuable articles and cash. After committing the
offence, the accused fled from the scene. In view of the above,
the role of the present applicant and his involvement in the
offence are clearly established. Therefore, the present application
deserves to be dismissed.


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



                                       Page 2 of 6
      R/CR.MA/212/2026                                ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




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.
Following aspects have been considered:


(1)      The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2023;
(2)      Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(3)      As per the prosecution case, the accused, in collusion
         with each other, illegally entered the complainant's house,
         threatened them with a revolver and knife, and forcibly
         took gold ornaments (80 tolas worth Rs.40,00,000), silver
         ornaments (6.2 kg worth Rs.3,72,000), and cash of
         Rs.1,20,000—totaling Rs.44,92,000. They also injured the
         complainant     and      her          mother-in-law,      tied         the
         complainant's hands, locked them in a room, and fled.
         Hence, the complaint;
(4)      The allegation against the present applicant is that he
         hatched a conspiracy in collusion with the other co-
         accused, and he has been arraigned in the FIR as an
         accused by adding Section 120B of the IPC. Since the
         applicant is in judicial custody, nothing has been
         recovered from his possession. Even otherwise, the co-
         accused whose role is more severe than that of the
         present applicant have already been released on bail. At
         the time of the offence, neither the complainant nor any
         witness identified the present applicant. It is alleged that
         the weapon used in the offence was recovered from the


                                 Page 3 of 6
      R/CR.MA/212/2026                          ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




         applicant’s house at Palanpur; however, apart from the
         said recovery, no other incriminating evidence has been
         found against him. Even if this fact is accepted, mere
         recovery of the weapon, by itself, is not sufficient to
         establish the offence against the applicant;
(5)      Now, nothing is required to be discovered or recovered
         from the accused and there is no possibility of the trial
         taking place in the near future and the applicant has no
         past antecedent;
(6)      As the co-accused has been granted bail, therefore, the
         present application requires consideration in view of the
         principle of parity laid down in the case of Rameshbhai
         Batubhai Dhabi vs. State of Gujarat, reported in(1999)
         3 GLR 1150;


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


                                Page 4 of 6
    R/CR.MA/212/2026                                ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s 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/s on regular bail. Hence,
the present application is allowed. The applicants is/are ordered
to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11206061230209 of 2023 registered with Santhal Police
Station,     Mahesana        on   executing     a   personal       bond       of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with 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 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 UIDAI Number, Contact Number/s, Passport
           Number (if he is having the passport), E-mail address and
           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 without prior permission
           of Trial Court;



                                  Page 5 of 6
           R/CR.MA/212/2026                                                 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




           (g)     not indulge in any illegal activity or any similar type of
                   offence. If the applicant is found in any illegal activity
                   or any similar type of activity, then, concerned
                   Investigating Officer shall                      have liberty to file an
                   application for cancellation of bail against the present
                   applicant. In case of breach of any conditions, the
                   concerned Trial Court shall have liberty to cancel the
                   bail of the present applicant;


     9.       The authorities will release the applicant/s 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.


     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 applicant/ on bail.


     12.      Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.                                       Direct
     service is permitted.


                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
     ALI



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 17:13:52

                                                   Page 6 of 6