[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ratanlal Madhavlal Teli vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5026 of 2026
==========================================================
RATANLAL MADHAVLAL TELI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAMODKUMAR C GEHLOT(13266) 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 : 17/03/2026
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 No.11200010230573 of
2023 registered with the Valsad Town Police Station, Valsad for
the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has
submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on
05.04.2023 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.
He has also submitted that this is a fourth round of litigation,
and the previous bail application was permitted to be
withdrawn with a liberty to the applicant to file fresh
application, if the trial does not conclude within a period of six
months. Learned advocate for the applicant has further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
submitted that now more than six months have been passed
after the withdrawal of previous application, however, not a
single witness has been examined, except those three
witnesses who had already been examined even prior to the
filing of the previous application, which indicates that the trial
is proceeding on a snails pace. He has further submitted that,
considering the period of incarceration already undergone by
the applicant, i.e.. for more than two and half years, coupled
with the fact that the trial is proceeding on a snails pace, and
not a single witness has been examined after the previous
withdrawal, keeping the accused behind the bar for such an
indefinite period of time, would be nothing but a pre-trial
conviction. Moreover, out of 31 witnesses cited to be
examined, only three witnesses have been examined so far,
and that too, prior to the filing of the previous application.
Furthermore, the applicant does not have any past
antecedents.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted
that he has produced the copy of the status of the proceedings
before the trial court, and on same being perused, it appears
that post withdrawal order dated 17.07.2025, not a single
witness has been examined, and except issuing consecutive
summonses to the F.S.L. Officer, the trial has not proceeded
even by an inch, Under the circumstances, learned advocate
for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on
bail on any suitable terms and conditions.
5. 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, upon verification of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
the record, has fairly conceded that after the previous
withdrawal, not a single witness has been examined, and out
of total 31 witnesses cited to be examined, only three
witnesses have been examined so far, and that too, prior to
the filing of the previous bail application. He has further
submitted that, however, considering the role attributed to the
applicant-accused and the nature of offence, this is a fit case
wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be
exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.
6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. 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;
b) That, the applicant is in jail since 05.04.2023, i.e, for
more than two and half years, and as such, looking to the fact,
as emerging from the status report submitted by the
concerned trial court, out of 31 witnesses cited to be
examined, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far
despite charge having been framed on 06.09.2023, and as
such, looking to the period of incarceration already undergone
by the applicant, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to
take considerable long period of time, and that not a single
witness has been examined after the withdrawal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
previous application, the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail;
c) That, the applicant does not have any past antecedents;
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Hence, the present application is allowed and the
applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in
connection with the FIR being No.11200010230573 of 2023
registered with the Valsad Town Police Station, Valsad, 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
[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;
11. 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.
12. 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.
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.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
14. This Court ordinarily refrains itself from making any kind
of adverse observations against the conduct of any Presiding
Officer (judicial or administrative). However, in the present
matter, the conduct of the concerned Presiding Officer seized
with the trial proceedings, constrain this Court to observe
something against it. The applicant-accused is in jail since
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
05.04.2023, and this is the fourth round of litigation, and as
such, this Court asked for the status report of trial from the
concerned Presiding Officer, who, in compliance, has also
forwarded the said report in the form of a letter, which reads
as under;
"Respected Sir,
With reference to the subject noted above, I have honour
to state that Hon'ble High Court (Coram: His Lordship
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Divyesh A. Joshi) vide order dated
17.03.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5026/2026
has directed to submit the report regarding status of
Special NDPS Case No.02/2023.
It is respectfully submitted that the said case been
allotted to this court on 30.06.2023. Thereafter, on
24.08.2023, the Documentary Evidence List has been
filed by Ld. APP. After that the charge has been framed
on 06.09.2023.
Thereafter the said case is on the stage of Evidence of
Prosecution and 03 witnesses have been examined out of
31 witnesses. Hence, 28 witnesses remained to be
examined."
15. The order of this Court, pursuant to which, the aforesaid
report is submitted is as under;
"In view of the submissions canvassed by learned
advocate for the applicant and in view of the averments
made in the application, the concerned trial court is
directed to submit report before this Court as regards the
status of trial, examination of witnesses and the time to
conclude the trial, so as to reach this Court on or before
next date of hearing.
Stand over 17th March, 2026."
16. Thus, it appears that the concerned Presiding Officer has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5026/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
filed the aforesaid report in a very casual manner, completely
ignoring the fate of the order. If the report is to be seen, the
Presiding Officer concerned has not answered the direction
about the time period to conclude the trial, and in a very
casual manner, has mentioned that out of 31 witnesses, 03
witnesses have been examined, which this Court already knew.
Further, looking to the status of the proceedings placed on
record by learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that
during this more than six months' period, except issuing
consecutive summonses to the FSL Officer only, nothing has
been done, neither summons being issued to the other
witnesses nor any strict action being taken to secure the
presence of the witness F.S.L. Officer.
17. Such is not the first instance. During the holding of the
business of subject matter, this Court came across many such
cases, wherein the direction issued by the High Court has been
disobeyed.
18. Therefore, only with a view to bring to the notice of the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice about the aforesaid scenario, the
Registrar General of this High Court is directed to place copy of
this order before the Hon'ble the Chief justice for kind perusal.
Direct service is permitted today.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
