R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 9319 of 2026 ========================================================== MANGILAL BISHNOI S/O BAGATARAM BISHNOI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: PAWAN BAROT, ADVOCATE WITH VIJAY U GOSWAMI(7927) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 08/05/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. This successive regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, in connection with CR. No. NCB/AZU/CR-03 of 2021 registered with NCB Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 18(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (herein after refereed to as ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Vide order dated 29.07.2022, the first bail application came to be dismissed. 3. Admittedly, out of three accused, two have been granted bail either by this Court or Sessions Court concerned. 4. According to the case of prosecution, on the basis of secret information, the NCB, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit raided the house on 20.03.2021 where from the R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 commercial quantity of opium seized and recovered. The contraband was handed over and/or delivered to accused Budharam by the present applicant Mangilal and accused no.3 – Rameshkumar Pokarram. On the day of raid, all the accused were present in the house and at the instance of accused Budharam, the contraband was recovered from an iron cupboard. In such circumstances, the respondent-NCB filed complaint under Section 36(A) of The NDPS Act before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and the same came to be registered as NDPS Special Case No.32 of 2021. After the complaint, the applicant herein moved an application for bail before the Sessions Court and same came to be rejected. The accused came before this Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022. Thereafter, the accused Budharam Vishnoi was considered by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 and accused Rameshkumar Pokarram was granted bail by the Sessions Court vide its order dated 28.04.2025. In these background facts, the applicant-accused by claiming parity with the co- accused, moved an application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court did not have consider the request and rejected the bail application on 25.03.2026. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant- accused by preferring this application, requested this Court to grant bail by exercising discretion in his favour. 6. Mr. Pawan Barot, learned advocate with Mr. Vijay R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 Goswami, learned advocate for the applicant urged that, (i) The principal accused Budharam Vishnoi is granted bail and thereafter, the accused Ramesh Vishnoi also been considered by the Sessions Court. Nothing contraband drugs found from the conscious possession of the applicant. The role attributed to the applicant and the role assigned to accused Ramesh Vishnoi are similar in nature as according to prosecution case, both were present in the house when raid was carried out. Thus, when the similarly situated person having been considered by the Court of Sessions, then the same Court could not have rejected the bail application of the applicant. (ii) The applicant and the co-accused Ramesh Vishnoi absconded for about 924 and 992 days respectively. Thus, as such there is no distinguishing fact available to the trial court for rejecting the application of the present applicant. (iii) The applicant is ready to abide for any condition. (iv) That, there is no progress in the trial proceedings and having regard to the number of witnesses, the trial may not be over in a reasonable time. 7. In such circumstances, Mr. Pawan Barot, learned advocate has submitted that the case is made out for exercising discretion and accordingly, it has been urged R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 that, the applicant may be released on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. 8. Opposing the bail application, learned Standing Counsel Mr. Harnish Darji and APP Mr. Jay Mehta Mehta for the State, reiterating the contents of the afÏdavit in reply, contended that, the applicant found with the possession of commercial quantity of the contraband drugs and therefore, considering the Section 37 of the NDPS Act, there are no reasonable grounds to the satisfaction of the court for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. The applicant-accused was absconded for a considerable time and there are chances of him for fleeing from justice and having regard to the past antecedents, the discretion may not be exercised in his favour. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having going through the material placed on record, it appears that, after rejection of the earlier application, the co-accused who having either similar allegations or serious allegations, are being considered by this Court as well as the Sessions Court concerned. Thus, this subsequent development can be said to be a substantial change in fact situation. Thus, I am of the view that, this successive bail application is maintainable. 10. So far as claim of parity with the co-accused Ramesh Pokrram Vishnoi is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that, the applicant is require to be extended the benefit of parity with the co-accused. Both the accused R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 were present in the house where the raid was carried out. The accused Rameshkumar after the arrest, was absconded for a period of 9992 days, whereas, the present applicant also absconded. Despite of this, the trial court has granted bail to the accused Ramesh Vishnoi. In such circumstances, by extending the benefit of parity, the applicant is also entitled for the discretionary relief of bail. Thus, by imposing stringent conditions. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that; (a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police OfÏcer or tamper with the evidence; (b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities. (c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete, R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 correct and present address of residence to the Investigating OfÏcer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial Court. (d) shall 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) shall not leave the territory of Gujarat State without prior permission of the Trial Court (f) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an AfÏdavit to that effect. 12. The authorities concerned shall 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. 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 concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/9319/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 14. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (ILESH J. VORA,J) P.S. JOSHI. Page 7 of 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 17:35:31