[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ramesh @Sunny Lakshmanbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7553 of 2026
==========================================================
RAMESH @SUNNY LAKSHMANBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat appearing on
behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and
learned advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for learned advocate
Mr.Ashish Dagli appearing on behalf of the original
complainant.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
3. The applicant has filed this application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR
being C.R. No. 185/2016 registered with Ramol Police Station,
Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections
302, 323, 114, 120(B), 201 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
the G.P.Act.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of
the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on
regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-
sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further
contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by
all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if
released on bail.
5. As against the same, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State and learned
advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for the complainant have vehemently
objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has
submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role
attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the
charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in
favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and having perused the documents on
record including FIR and charge-sheet papers, this Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
disinclined to consider this application for the following
reasons:-
i. The primary aspect which dissuades this Court from
allowing the present application is the fact that the present
applicant had originally approached this Court vide
Criminal Misc. Application No.9755/2018 and whereas,
vide an order dated 04.10.2018, the applicant had chosen
to withdraw his application.
ii. Thereafter, the applicant had approached this
Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No.15235/2019 and
whereas, vide a reasoned order dated 01.10.2019 a learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the said
application. The learned Coordinate Bench was of the
opinion that the offence was very serious inasmuch as the
same being punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and
whereas, the learned Coordinate Bench was also prima
facie clear about the role of the present applicant inasmuch
as the present applicant was the one who has allegedly
given a fatal blow upon the deceased. Perusing order dated
01.10.2019, it also appears that the learned Coordinate
Bench had discussed the evidence against the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
applicant and had rejected the application as noticed
hereinabove while observing as regards the role of the
present applicant.
iii. It would appear that the present applicant has
preferred this application inter alia on the ground that after
the year 2019, two of the co-accused namely one
Dharmsinh @ Dhamo and Pratik Desai had been released
on regular bail by the learned Sessions Court. In that
regard, it would be relevant to refer to observation of the
learned Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1133/2026 more particularly order dated 17.02.2026
passed thereupon, which is impugned in the present
application, where the learned Sessions Court has
distinguished the role attributed to the present applicant as
against the role attributed to the co-accused who had been
considered by learned Predecessor Judge of the learned
Sessions Court which had rejected the application.
iv. As far as co-accused Dharmsinh @ Dhamo is
concerned, it has been observed by the learned Sessions
Court that while releasing the said applicant, the learned
Predecessor Judge had observed that the presence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
said applicant at the said spot itself was suspicious and that
the muddamal sword recovered from the said applicant did
not have any blood stains.
v. As against the co-accused Pratik Desai, learned
Sessions Court observed that the role attributed to the said
co-accused was of having inflicted injuries with a sword
and that the learned Sessions Court had noticed that the
deceased did not receive any injury from the sword of the
said co-accused, rather, there was only one head injury
upon the body of the deceased. The learned Sessions Court
had also noticed that the applicant was not seen in the
videography and that no blood stains were found on the
sword recovered at the behest of the said applicant.
vi. As against the same, as noticed hereinabove,
learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 01.10.2019 had
clearly noticed the fact that the allegation against the
present applicant was of having inflicted a blow using a
sharp edged weapon i.e. Dhariya upon the head of the
deceased which had led to his death. Considering that the
role attributed to the present applicant is different than the
role attributed to the co-accused, as distinguished by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
learned Sessions Court, the applicant would not be entitled
to be released on the ground of parity.
vii. To this Court, it would appear that even if the roles
attributed to the present applicant and the co-accused were
similar, the applicant ought not to be released on regular
bail also considering the fact that the present applicant has
a history of indulging in criminal activity and whereas, the
present applicant has around 12 cases registered against
him including another offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC registered in the year 1998, the applicant
also has allegations of having committed offences
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 397 etc. of the IPC
and the applicant has various offences punishable under
the Arms Act, it also appears that provisions of PASA Act
also had been invoked against the present applicant. Thus,
considering the antecedents also, this Court would not be
inclined to release the present applicant.
viii. It also appears that while some of the cases have
been disposed of as uncontested, yet, it has been pointed
out by learned advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for learned advocate
Mr.Ashish Dagli for the complainant that the same were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
disposed of under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, more particularly, since the applicant was not
traceable/available.
ix. Over and above the same, it would also appear that
the applicant is not entitled to be released on regular bail
on account of his conduct during the course of
incarceration. It would appear in this regard that the
present applicant had been released on temporary bail in
the year 2017 when he had absconded for a period of 239
days. Over and above the same, it also appears that in the
year 2022 when the applicant had been released by the
learned Sessions Court, he had absconded for a period of
1238 days i.e. for approximately three and a half years and
was apprehended only on 05.12.2025 i.e. very recently.
x. It also appears that during the period when the
applicant was absconding from the year 2022 through
2025, two other FIRs also had been registered over and
above the 12 FIRs referred to hereinabove. Thus, it would
appear that the present applicant has a tendency to indulge
in such type of criminal activities.
xi. To this Court, even if all circumstances were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
favourable i.e. the role of the applicant being similar to the
role of the co-accused and the applicant not having any
antecedents whatsoever, even yet, considering the fact that
the applicant had absconded and had been arrested very
recently after a period of three and a half years, also would
dissuade this Court from exercising its discretion in favour
of the present applicant.
xii. Over and above the same, it would also appear that
the trial is at a very advanced stage. It appears in this
regard that while the evidence of the prosecution was
almost over, at that stage, the prosecution has moved an
application for recall of four witnesses. Thus, it would mean
that the trial is at a very very advanced stage and whereas,
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, releasing accused in a
serious offence like the present one i.e. punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC would be counterproductive to the
trial itself. Again, it would appear that the said proposition
would apply with more force to the case on hand
considering the antecedents of the present applicant and
also also having regard to the fact that the applicant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7553/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
clearly shown that he is a person who has no respect for
the rule of law more particularly with the long list of
antecedents and with the fact of the applicant having
absconded after discretion had been exercised in his
favour.
xiii. While learned advocate Mr.Popat would rely upon
a certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Sub-Jail Patan
on the basis of which learned advocate would try and
submit that the applicant is suffering from cancer, yet, to
this Court, it would appear that the jail authorities taking
appropriate care as regards the present applicant, even on
the ground of illness, this Court would not be inclined to
consider releasing the present applicant, more particularly,
for the reasons noted hereinabove.
7. Having regard to the above observations, the present not
being a case where this Court would like to exercise its
discretion in favour of the present applicant, the same stands
disposed of as rejected. Rule is discharged. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
