High Court of Gujarat
MANGILAL BISHNOI S/O BAGATARAM BISHNOIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- ILESH VORA
Holding
The Court held that the successive bail application is maintainable and, by extending the benefit of parity with the co‑accused, granted bail to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a successive regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in a case involving alleged possession of a commercial quantity of opium under Sections 8(c), 18(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Earlier bail applications by the applicant were rejected, while co‑accused Budharam Vishnoi and Rameshkumar Pokarram had been granted bail by this Court or the Sessions Court. The applicant argued that he should receive the same benefit of parity as the co‑accused, noting that both were present at the raid and had similarly absconded for long periods. The State contended that the applicant was found in possession of the contraband and posed a flight risk, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that the change in factual circumstances justified a fresh consideration, extended the parity principle to the applicant, and granted bail subject to stringent conditions, ordering a bond of Rs.10,000 with a surety.
Issues considered
- Whether a successive bail application is maintainable after an earlier rejection.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with co‑accused who have been granted bail.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 BNSS despite alleged possession of commercial quantity of narcotics and periods of abscondence.
- Whether the discretion of the court can be exercised to impose conditions on bail in NDPS cases.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Acts. 18(b), s. 29, s. 36(A), s. 37, s. 8(c)
Subjects
bailNDPS Actsuccessive bailparity principlecommercial quantityabscondencediscretionhigh court
Judgment
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 9319 of 2026
==========================================================
MANGILAL BISHNOI S/O BAGATARAM BISHNOI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PAWAN BAROT, ADVOCATE WITH VIJAY U GOSWAMI(7927) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. This successive regular bail application filed under
Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, in connection with CR.
No. NCB/AZU/CR-03 of 2021 registered with NCB
Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section
8(c), 18(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, (herein after refereed to as ‘the NDPS
Act’).
2. Vide order dated 29.07.2022, the first bail application
came to be dismissed.
3. Admittedly, out of three accused, two have been granted
bail either by this Court or Sessions Court concerned.
4. According to the case of prosecution, on the basis of
secret information, the NCB, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit
raided the house on 20.03.2021 where from the
Page 1 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
commercial quantity of opium seized and recovered. The
contraband was handed over and/or delivered to accused
Budharam by the present applicant Mangilal and accused
no.3 – Rameshkumar Pokarram. On the day of raid, all
the accused were present in the house and at the
instance of accused Budharam, the contraband was
recovered from an iron cupboard. In such circumstances,
the respondent-NCB filed complaint under Section 36(A)
of The NDPS Act before the City Civil & Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad and the same came to be registered as
NDPS Special Case No.32 of 2021. After the complaint,
the applicant herein moved an application for bail before
the Sessions Court and same came to be rejected. The
accused came before this Court challenging the order of
the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 29.07.2022. Thereafter, the
accused Budharam Vishnoi was considered by this Court
vide order dated 08.04.2025 and accused Rameshkumar
Pokarram was granted bail by the Sessions Court vide its
order dated 28.04.2025. In these background facts, the
applicant-accused by claiming parity with the co-
accused, moved an application before the Sessions
Court. The Sessions Court did not have consider the
request and rejected the bail application on 25.03.2026.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant-
accused by preferring this application, requested this
Court to grant bail by exercising discretion in his favour.
6. Mr. Pawan Barot, learned advocate with Mr. Vijay
Page 2 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
Goswami, learned advocate for the applicant urged that,
(i) The principal accused Budharam Vishnoi is granted
bail and thereafter, the accused Ramesh Vishnoi
also been considered by the Sessions Court.
Nothing contraband drugs found from the conscious
possession of the applicant. The role attributed to
the applicant and the role assigned to accused
Ramesh Vishnoi are similar in nature as according
to prosecution case, both were present in the house
when raid was carried out. Thus, when the similarly
situated person having been considered by the
Court of Sessions, then the same Court could not
have rejected the bail application of the applicant.
(ii) The applicant and the co-accused Ramesh Vishnoi
absconded for about 924 and 992 days
respectively. Thus, as such there is no
distinguishing fact available to the trial court for
rejecting the application of the present applicant.
(iii) The applicant is ready to abide for any condition.
(iv) That, there is no progress in the trial proceedings
and having regard to the number of witnesses, the
trial may not be over in a reasonable time.
7. In such circumstances, Mr. Pawan Barot, learned
advocate has submitted that the case is made out for
exercising discretion and accordingly, it has been urged
Page 3 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
that, the applicant may be released on bail by imposing
appropriate conditions.
8. Opposing the bail application, learned Standing Counsel
Mr. Harnish Darji and APP Mr. Jay Mehta Mehta for the
State, reiterating the contents of the afÏdavit in reply,
contended that, the applicant found with the possession
of commercial quantity of the contraband drugs and
therefore, considering the Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
there are no reasonable grounds to the satisfaction of the
court for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
The applicant-accused was absconded for a considerable
time and there are chances of him for fleeing from justice
and having regard to the past antecedents, the discretion
may not be exercised in his favour.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective
parties and having going through the material placed on
record, it appears that, after rejection of the earlier
application, the co-accused who having either similar
allegations or serious allegations, are being considered
by this Court as well as the Sessions Court concerned.
Thus, this subsequent development can be said to be a
substantial change in fact situation. Thus, I am of the
view that, this successive bail application is maintainable.
10. So far as claim of parity with the co-accused Ramesh
Pokrram Vishnoi is concerned, I am of the considered
opinion that, the applicant is require to be extended the
benefit of parity with the co-accused. Both the accused
Page 4 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
were present in the house where the raid was carried
out. The accused Rameshkumar after the arrest, was
absconded for a period of 9992 days, whereas, the
present applicant also absconded. Despite of this, the
trial court has granted bail to the accused Ramesh
Vishnoi. In such circumstances, by extending the benefit
of parity, the applicant is also entitled for the
discretionary relief of bail. Thus, by imposing stringent
conditions.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie,
this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is
ordered to be released on bail in connection with the
aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
conditions that;
(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact
of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts
to the Court or any Police OfÏcer or tamper with the
evidence;
(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any
criminal activities.
(c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete,
Page 5 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
correct and present address of residence to the
Investigating OfÏcer and to the Trial Court at the time of
executing the bond and shall not change residence
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact
numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of
change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to
the trial Court.
(e) shall not leave the territory of Gujarat State without
prior permission of the Trial Court
(f) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a
week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an
AfÏdavit to that effect.
12. The authorities concerned shall 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. 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.
13. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court
in the present order.
Page 6 of 7
R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
14. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI.
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 17:35:31
Page 7 of 7
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search