Allowed

Maalsinh Abheysinh Rajput v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC14 Sept 2026CR.MA/19742/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed a criminal miscellaneous application for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. The court held that pre-trial detention amounts to pre-trial conviction and granted bail subject to personal bond and conditions regarding appearance and residence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on regular bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety, subject to conditions.

Maalsinh Abheysinh Rajput Vs State of Gujarat — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2026)

¶1

R/CR.MA/19742/2026 (GJHC240635762026) ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 19742 of 2026

¶4

========================================================== MAALSINH ABHEYSINH RAJPUT

¶5

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

BHARATKUMAR A DESAI(8513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

¶11

Date : 14/09/2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

[1.0] RULE . Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

¶14

[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. 11821052260523 of 2026 registered with Piplod Police Station, Dahod , for the offence under the provisions of The Gujarat Prohibition Act and Sections 336(2)(3) and 340(2) of BNS.

¶15

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. He has no past antecedent. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶16

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that, the applicant is involved in the offence. Considering the conduct of the applicant, application does not deserve any consideration.

¶17

[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

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

R/CR.MA/19742/2026 (GJHC240635762026) ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026

¶20

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.

¶21

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

¶22

(1) The applicant is owner of the vehicle.

¶23

(2) No past antecedent;

¶24

(3) Applicant is behind the bar since 21.07.2026;

¶25

(4) Substantial part of investigation is over;

¶26

(5) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

¶27

(6) There is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

¶28

(7) Offence is triable by the Court of Magistrate.

¶29

[7.0] 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

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

R/CR.MA/19742/2026 (GJHC240635762026) ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026

¶32

well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

¶33

[8.0] 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. 11821052260523 of 2026 registered with Piplod Police Station, Dahod 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/she shall;

¶34

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

¶35

(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;

¶36

¶37

(d) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

¶38

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a week till filing of the chargesheet and after filing of the chargesheet, mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months;

¶39

(f) furnish the copy of Aadhaar card, email ID/contact number / permanent 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 and contact number/SIM card without prior permission of Trial Court;

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

R/CR.MA/19742/2026 (GJHC240635762026) ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026

¶42

(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶43

[9.0] 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.

¶44

[10.0] 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.

¶45

[11.0] 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.

¶46

[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

¶47

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

¶48

SUCHIT

¶49

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.

¶50

Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/09/2026 17:07:03

¶51

Page 4 of 4