[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar @ Kalu Chhabbiram Garg vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3554 of 2026
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR @ KALU CHHABBIRAM GARG
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUSAIB I SHAIKH(10565) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 16/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jay K. Kosti for learned Advocate Mr.
M.I. Shaikh appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. 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. 11191033200001 of
2020 registered with Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for
the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 294(b), 114, 120-B, 143,
144, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of
the Gujarat Police Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
3. 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.
4. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent - State has 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.
5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and
having perused the documents on record including the charge-sheet
papers, this Court is not inclined to consider this application for the
following reasons :
i. The fact of the offence being very serious inasmuch as, the accused
had gone to the residence of the deceased and had assaulted him
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
leading to his death.
ii. While it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kosti for the
applicant that the accused No.1, who had a more serious role than the
present applicant had been considered for being released on regular
bail by this Court, and whereas the present applicant would be entitled
to the benefit of parity, yet, to this Court it would appear that the
benefit of the said order would not enure in favour of the present
applicant.
iii. It appears in this regard that the allegation against the accused No.1
one Ravi @ Patel Rajnikumar Somabhai Nai being that he had
dragged the deceased out of the house and whereas it was alleged that
the accused Ravi and other accused including the present applicant,
who were part of the same group, had assaulted the deceased. It would
appear in this regard that learned Co-ordinate Bench had released the
said co-accused on the ground that he did not use any weapon whereas
the present applicant having used an iron pipe, prima facie coming out
in the investigation.
iv. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kosti on behalf of the
applicant that the role attributed to the present applicant was of having
assaulted a witness, who was present at the site, and not to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
deceased. It would appear in this regard that while the said witness,
whom the present applicant had assaulted, has in his statement inter
alia stated that the applicant had also assaulted the deceased, and
whereas to this Court it would appear that when the entire group i.e.
around six accused had come with a common intention, while there
may slight variation in the role attributed to the accused, yet, the
common intention of the accused i.e. to do away with the deceased
could not be ignored. It would also be relevant to mention that while
the applicant is alleged to have inflicted blows using iron pipe upon
the deceased, the Postmortem Note reveals that the deceased had been
inflicted with 10 different wounds, three being contusion injuries,
which could be the result of assault by iron pipe.
v. Learned Advocate would also argue that the applicant may be
released on the ground of delay in trial and whereas, to this Court it
would appear that the applicant would not be entitled to benefit of the
trial being delayed, more particularly since it appears that the present
applicant had been predominantly responsible for the delay in
question.
vi. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant had been
enlarged on temporary bail on 03.03.2020 and the applicant having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
been arrested/surrendered on 11.04.2022 i.e. after a period of 1028
days, it would clearly appear that the present applicant himself had
ensured that the trial could not proceed on account of his absence. As
a matter of fact, it would appear that the applicant had approached this
Court earlier vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 5288 of 2022 and
whereas, it would appear that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had also considered the fact that the delay was not
extraordinary. It also appears in this regard that the applicant herein,
had not engaged any Advocate for a substantially long period of time
and whereas as per the statement made by learned APP Mr. Kathiriya,
under instructions of the Investigating Officer, very recently i.e. in the
month of February, 2026, the learned Trial Court had directed
providing of an Advocate through the machinery of Legal Aid and
whereas vide an order dated 16.02.2026, the learned Advocate had
entered his appearance. It would thus appear that the present applicant
himself had not engaged an Advocate and which may also be one of
the causes for the delay in the trial not getting concluded.
vii.It also appears in this regard that apart from the accused Ravi, who
had been released, none of the other accused, who were part of the
group which had assaulted the deceased, including the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3554/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
applicant, had either approached or been considered for release by any
Court.
6. Having regard to the above, since it appears that the offence is very
serious and the role of the present applicant prima facie coming out
clearly and whereas since the present applicant had misused the liberty
granted by absconding for 1028 days and since it appears that the present
applicant may himself be responsible for the trial being delayed, to this
Court it would appear that the present is not a case where the discretion of
this Court is required to be exercised in favour of the present applicant.
Hence, the present application stands disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
