R/CR.MA/19529/2026(GJHC240635622026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 19529 of 2026 ========================================================== PREMAL BHARATBHAI GAJJAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN N MAJMUDAR(14000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 21/08/2026 ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. [2.0] The present application is "led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11206020260795 of 2026 registered with Kadi Police Station, Mahesana, for the o1ences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)(a) and 212(a) of the BNS. [3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the o1ence. Substantial part of investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Allegation made in the FIR is that, though Puriben was expired, one of the lady accused with mala"de intention impersonated herself as Puriben before the revenue authority, put signature as Puriben and sold the subject land by way of registered sale deed and other accused have put their signatures as witnesses. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the o1ence, 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 R/CR.MA/19529/2026(GJHC240635622026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 regular bail on the ground that though the applicant was very much within the knowledge of owner of the land i.e. Puriben, who already expired way back in the year 1991, he has wrongly impersonated the owner of the land and stood as a witness in the sale deed of the land. 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 o1ence, 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) Substantial part of investigation is over; (2) None of the o1ence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ; (3) Applicant is behind the bar since31.07.2026; (4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (5) No past antecedent. (6) O1ence is triable by JMFC Court. (7) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take R/CR.MA/19529/2026(GJHC240635622026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 its own time. (8) Case is based on documentary evidence. Role of the applicant is that, he has identi"ed co-accused as Puriben and signed as a witness before the authority in the sale deed. Except this, he has not played any role nor he gained any monetary bene"ts. (9) However, prior to registration of FIR, transaction has been reversed. [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 "t 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. 11206020260795 of 2026 registered with Kadi Police Station, Mahesana, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-"ve Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/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 & R/CR.MA/19529/2026(GJHC240635622026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 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 State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a week till "ling of the chargesheet and after "ling 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 OHcer 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 o1ence 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 inIuenced 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) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/08/2026 15:27:01