IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 12946 of 2026 ========================================================== KOKILABEN GANPATSINH MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR MONTUBHAI G PATEL(9299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 28/07/2026 ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for 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 FIR being C.R. No.11209041260129 of 2026 registered with Prantij Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) and 238(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). [3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. 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 looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. [5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the p. 2 accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the 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) The allegation as per the prosecution case is that deceased happens to be brother in law of the present applicant and applicant was having affair with one Dolatsinh Makwana and as the deceased was aware of the illicit relationship of present applicant, he used to blackmail the applicant and it is alleged that due to this reason, present applicant has hatched the conspiracy and provided Rs.2 lakh to accused No.1 towards contract killing of the deceased Vishnusinh but no any evidence is collected qua parting with the said amount or no any amount is recovered and in this regard the investigation is silent. Even if the charge-sheet papers are perused, it appears that applicant is one of the conspirators. Even though, if CDR between accused Nos.1 and 4 is looked at, there is no material collected by the investigating agency with regard to hatching of criminal conspiracy and as per the case of prosecution itself, present applicant is having affair with the accused No.1. Hence, talk or contact through mobile phone and CDR in that regard is quite p. 3 natural considering the illicit relationship between both of them. Even otherwise, investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; (2) Applicant is a lady accused and is behind the bars since 06.02.2026; (3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (4) The applicant is not having any past antecedent; (5) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time. [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 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 FIR being C.R. No.11209041260129 of 2026 registered with Prantij Police Station, District Sabarkantha 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 she shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & p. 4 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; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the territory of State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (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 p.m.; (f) furnish the copy of Aadhaar card, email ID/contact number / permanent and present address of her residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence and contact number/SIM card 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 she 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. [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay