[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Joshi Mukeshkumar Bhanushankar vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 23/03/2026
Pronounced On : 01/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2135 of 2026
(FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
JOSHI MUKESHKUMAR BHANUSHANKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR AS TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule
for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. The present application, which is a successive
bail application preferred by the applicant after
the rejection of earlier bail application being
Criminal Misc. Application No.7776/2025 by an
order dated 19.06.2025, is filed under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for regular
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.III-
08/2022 registered with the ATS Police Station,
Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under
Sections 8(C), 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Timbalia assisted
by learned advocate, Mr. B.K. Raj for the
applicant and learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the
responded - State of Gujarat.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Timbalia submitted that this
is a successive bail application preferred by the
applicant after the rejection of earlier bail
application pursuant to the liberty granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that in
connection with the aforesaid offence, the
applicant has been arrested on 28.02.2023 and
since then, he is in judicial custody i.e. since
last more than three years and till date, the
trial has not proceeded further and the charge has
not been framed by the court concerned. He
submitted that at the time of submission of the
chargesheet, the concerned Investigating Officer
has relied upon total 95 witnesses, however till
date, not a single witness has been examined by
the concerned court, therefore, trial will take
considerable long time to conclude, therefore for
indefinite period, the applicant may not be kept
behind the bar, otherwise, it would amount to pre-
trial punishment, which would also violate the
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Timbalia submitted that in
fact, other co-accused viz., Ayman @ Ayan @ Baba
Musa Shaikh, who is attributed graver role than
the present applicant, had approached the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
Supreme Court against the rejection of his bail
application by this Hon'ble Court, has been
released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
copy of said order is produced on record. He
referred to the said order and submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed while releasing
the said co-accused that no contraband or any
material is found from the conscious possession of
the said accused and he had suffered period of
incarceration of nearly 17 months and here in the
present case on hand, there is no recovery found
from the conscious possession of the present
applicant. He submitted that considering the said
observation, if the facts of the present applicant
is concerned, in that event, it is found out that
the applicant is in judicial custody since last
more than 36 months and so far as the role
attributed to the present applicant is concerned,
it is alleged that he was in constant touch with
the co-accused and in support of it, the concerned
IO had collected CDR, however except, CDR, there
is no material available in the papers of the
chargesheet, which connect him with the alleged
commission of crime. He further submitted that
against the co-accused, who has been considered
for bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
material available against him was the CDR and
considering the said fact also, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has exercised the descretion and as
submitted above, except CDR, there is not material
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
available in the papers of the chargesheet, which
connect him with the alleged commission of crime.
He submitted that in fact, the said co-accused had
received huge volume of amount of the contraband
articles from the co-accused and also paid more
than Rs.4.00 crores to other co-accused through
angadiya and he was also in constant touch with
other co-accused. It is, therefore, submitted that
considering the role attributed to the said co-
accused, admittedly the role attributed to the
present applicant is lesser than the said co-
accused. Learned advocate submitted that in view
of the number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court including recent decisions, bail is a rule
and jail is exceptional. Learned advocate,
therefore, submitted that considering the period
of incarceration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the case of bail of the accused
concerned. In support of this submission, learned
advocate has placed reliance upon the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble
Court and submitted that negation of bail is the
rule and its grant and exception under sub-clause
(ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the NDPS
Act. It is, therefore, urged that considering the
nature of the offence, the period of incarceration
spent by the applicant so far as also on the
ground of parity, there being merit in this
application, the applicant may be enlarged on
regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
6. Learned APP, Mr. Shah for the respondent-State has
opposed grant of regular bail looking to the
nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted
that since beginning, the name as well as role of
the present applicant has come on surface and
thus, his active involvement in the alleged
commission of crime is clearly found out,
therefore, this being successive bail application
may not be entertained without there being any
chanced circumstances. He submitted that the
applicant is possessing decree of B.Sc. And B.Ed.
and having experience in the chemical field and he
had come in contact with other accused persons and
in connivance with each other, they have rented
one premises, wherein the present applicant had
manufactured Mephedrone drug and the said
contraband substance had been sold in the open
market in huge quantity. He further submitted that
the contraband muddamal articles have been
recovered from the conscious possession of the co-
accused, which commercial quantity, therefore,
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come
into play. Learned APP, therefore, submitted that
considering the seriousness of the offence and the
role attributed to him at the time of commission
of crime, the present application may not be
entertained.
7. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for further
reasoned order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers of the investigation and considered the
allegations levelled against the applicant and the
role played by the applicant. It is found out from
the record that the present application is a
successive bail application preferred by the
applicant after the rejection of earlier
application on the ground of delay in trial and
period of incarceration spent by him in judicial
custody since his arrest as also on the ground of
party as other co-accused, who is having graver
role than the present applicant has been
considered for bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. I have considered the role attributed to the
present applicant at the time of commission of
crime and the role attributed to the co-accused,
who have been considered for bail. It is also
found out from the record that there are around 95
witnesses cited at the time of submission of
chargesheet and there is no progress in the trial
also. In fact, by an order dated 23.02.2026, a
report with regard to the status of trial was
called, which has been received by this Court and
having perused the same, it is found out that
there is no progress in trial and yet the charge
has not been framed and not a single witness has
been examined and thus admittedly, trial has not
been proceeded further, therefore, trial would
take considerable long time to conclude. Therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
considering the above factual aspects, on the
ground of parity and considering the period of
incarceration spent by the applicant in jail, the
present application deserves to be allowed.
10. I have taken into consideration the recent
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of regular bail as also successive bail
application, wherein it has been categorically
observed that "bail is the rule and refusal is an
exception" and specific observations have been
made with regard to the grant of bail. I have also
taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
[2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in case of Satender
Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. Therefore in
the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made
against the applicant in the FIR as also
considering the period of incarceration spent by
the applicant in jail, this Court is of the
opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the
discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular
bail.
11. Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.III-
08/2022 registered with the ATS Police Station,
Ahmedabad on executing a personal bond of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 injuries to the interest
of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the concerned
court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the concerned court;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police
Station on alternate Monday of every English
calendar month for a period of six months
between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of 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 this Court;
12. 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 concerned
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2135/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
and/or relax any of the above conditions, in
accordance with law.
13. 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.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
