R/CR.MA/6728/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6728 of 2025 ========================================================== IMRAN @ IMU MO. ISLAMBHAI SHAIKH & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR MD. MOHSIN M SHAIKH(12400) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 23/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The Applicants have filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191018240991 of 2024 registered with Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad City. 2. Learned Advocate for the Applicants seek permission to withdraw the present Application qua Applicant No. 1 – Imran @ Imu Mo. Islambhai Shaikh. Permission as prayed for is granted. The matter stands disposed of as withdrawn qua Applicant No.1. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant qua Applicant No. 2 - Istiyak Israilbhai Shaikh and learned APP for the Respondent – State. 4. Rule qua Applicant No. 2. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State. 5. Qua Applicant No. 2, learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted R/CR.MA/6728/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025 that no specific role has been attributed to the Applicant No.2 except being present at the scene of offence. He has further submitted that the Applicant No. 2 has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant No. 2 in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the Applicant No. 2 is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that both the Applicants were present at the scene of offence armed with weapons. He further submitted that in the FIR the Applicant No.2 has been attributed the weapon of sword. Actually the Applicant No.2 was found present at the place of incident armed with Base Ball Bat and with the said Base Ball Bat, the Applicant No.2 had inflicted several blows upon the body of the deceased. There are eyewitnesses to the incident who have clearly narrated the role attributed to the Appliant No.2. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicant and the Application may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. In the FIR it is stated against the Applicant No.2 that he was present at the place of incident armed with sword. However, though the FIR has been lodged by the first informant, who happens to be the mother of the deceased and an eyewitness, no specific role has been attributed to the Applicant No.2. Subsequently, the statements of other eyewitnesses came to be recorded after a period of two months from the date of the incident, wherein, the weapon attributed to the Applicant No.2 is a Base Ball Bat and it is stated in the said statement that the Applicant No.2 had assaulted the deceased with a Base Ball Bat. However, there is a contradiction in the role attributed to the Applicant No.2 as the other eyewitnesses whose R/CR.MA/6728/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025 statements have been recorded immediately after the incident, do not attribute any specific role to the Applicant No.2. Considering these aspects, the Application deserves consideration qua Appliant No. 2 - Istiyak Israilbhai Shaikh. This court has also considered the following aspects: (a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant No.2 at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused. (b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicant No. 2 is not likely to flee away. (c) That the Applicant No. 2 is in custody since 27.11.2024. (d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant No. 2 at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant No. 2, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed qua Applicant No. 2 - Istiyak Israilbhai Shaikh. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant No. 2 - Istiyak Israilbhai Shaikh is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall: (a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from R/CR.MA/6728/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025 disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities. (c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court. (d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court. (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2.00 pm. (f) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any. (g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court (h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant No. 2 do not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect. 9. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for. 10. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant No. 2 - Istiyak Israilbhai Shaikh forthwith only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. 11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the R/CR.MA/6728/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025 prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 12. Rule is made absolute qua Applicant No.2. Direct service permitted. (M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 79 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: JAYANTILAL NARAYAN WAGHELA(HC00178), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/07/2025 11:39:22