Lalsinh Pratapsinh Mahida vs State Of Gujarat on 11 May, 2026

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.MA/11408/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

                                                                                                             undefined




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
                                   CHARGESHEET) NO. 11408 of 2026

                     ==================================================
                                               LALSINH PRATAPSINH MAHIDA
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                     ==================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR YUNUS U MALEK(5343) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 11/05/2026

                                                               ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in connection with FOR dated 15.03.2026 bearing No.4 of 2026 registered with Range Forest Officer, Anklav, District : Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1), 2(14), 2(16)(a)(b)(c), 2(20), 2(35), 2(36), 2(38), 9, 39, 50, 51, 52 and 57 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 .

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Co- accused are granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity also, applicant may be enlarged on bail. Not to indulge in a similar type of activity. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail application. Chargesheet is yet to be filed. He submits that the co-accused having the different role and considering their age, they were released on bail and applicant having the past antecedents, but which is registered under the IPC, no offense is registered under the Forest Act and no case of prosecution that this one is a second offense registered under the Forest Act. He also submits that if he is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant will flee from justice and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Substantial part of investigation is over; (2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ;

(3) Applicant is behind the bar since 15.03.2026;

                              (4)     There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from
                                      the      applicant;
                              (5)     He is not named in the FIR but based on the

statement of co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

(6) Co-accused having similarly situated role are enlarged on regular bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also (Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999), present application deserves consideration.

                              (7)     Offence is triable by JMFC Court.
                              (8)     Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will
                                      take its own time.
                              (9)     The allegation against the present applicant, he was

found in the rickshaw along with meat of Blue Bull, which is a protected species.

(10) Court has considered the gravity of offense and no any other offenses registered against the present applicant under the Forest Act.

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

[8.0] 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. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FOR dated 15.03.2026 bearing No.4 of 2026 registered with Range Forest Officer, Anklav, District : Anand on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five 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 injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a week till filing of the chargesheet and after

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

filing of the chargesheet, mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months;

(f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court;

(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

[9.0] 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.

[10.0] 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.

[11.0] 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11408/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026

undefined

[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

DHARMENDRA KUMAR