Gujarat High Court
Sanjay @ Thuthiyo Ranchodbhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4410/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 4410 of 2025
==========================================================
SANJAY @ THUTHIYO RANCHODBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M M SHAIKIH(11314) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UVESH M SHAIKH(11313) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in
connection with F.I.R. No.11191004211532 of 2021 registered
with Amraiwadi Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 135(1) of the G. P. Act.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the
present offence on 15.11.2021 and since then, he is in the
custody and he has undergone period of incarceration for more
than three years and there has been no progress at all in the
trial. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of
offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be
enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
2.1 In support of his case, learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4410/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
applicant has sought to rely upon the judgment rendered in the
case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha reported in (2023)
LiveLaw (Selection Committee) 533.
3. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State
has vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the
present applicant is serious in nature. He has further submitted
that the allegations against the applicant, are serious in nature
and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against
the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and perused the documents produced on record. This Court vide
order dated 02.05.2025 had asked the learned trial Court to
submit its report as regards the current status of trial and
accordingly learned trial Court has submitted its report
pertaining to status of trial which indicates that the applicant
has yet not engaged an advocate for his defense and on every
occasion, the applicant has been asked by the learned trial
Court to engage his advocate. However, till date, the applicant
has not engaged an advocate on his behalf. Thus, the trial of the
present offence has not been delayed because of any reason
attributable to the prosecution. It is the applicant himself who is
responsible for delay in trial.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the
applicant. The application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
NABILA
