[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Raju Krupagiri Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5340/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5340 of 2026
==========================================================
RAJU KRUPAGIRI RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SURAJ B MATIEDA(10499) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN SHAH, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 20/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.III-08 of 2022
registered with the A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad for the
alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Panthil Majmudar appearing for
the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was
arrested on 11.01.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned
advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the
investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet
has also been filed. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since last
more than three years, and still even the charge has not been
framed, and as such, it seems that the trial is likely to take
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5340/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
considerable long period of time to conclude, and as such,
keeping the accused behind the bar for such an indefinite
period of time, would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction. He
has further submitted that the applicant is not named in the
FIR, and on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, he
has been arraigned as an accused in the present offence. He
has also submitted that the identically situated co-accused
persons have already been released on bail either by the
Hon'ble Apex Court or by this Court. Moreover, the applicant
does not have any past antecedents. Under the circumstances,
learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the applicant prays that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms
and conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that
considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is
a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not
required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.
5. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. 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. This Court
has also considered the following aspects;
a) That the investigation has already been completed and
charge-sheet has also been filed;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5340/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
b) That the other identically situated co-accused persons
have already been released on bail;
c) That the applicant is in jail since 11.01.2023, i.e., for
more than three years, and the trial is still at the stage of
framing of charge, and as such, it seems that the trial is likely
to take considerable long period of time;
d) That the applicant is not named in the FIR, and on the
basis of the statement made by the co-accused he has been
implicated in the present offence;
e) That the applicant does not have any past criminal
antecedents;
7. This Court has 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.
8. 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.
9. Hence, the present application is allowed and the
applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.III-08 of 2022 registered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5340/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
with the A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad, on executing a
personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 lower court within
a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[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;
[g] not to enter into the revenue limits of District
Baroda for a period of two years, except marking
presence at the concerned police station and to
attend the court proceedings
10. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5340/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
11. 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.
12. 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.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
