IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 4617 of 2026 ========================================================== VINITBHAI BABUBHAIO PATEL & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR DARSHIT H RAVAL(11887) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR YUNUS U MALEK(5343) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 10/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyay with learned advocate Mr.Darshit Raval appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Kurven Desai appearing on behalf of the original complainant. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicants have -led this application under Section p. 2 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11215037260093/2026 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand for the o:ence punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. 4. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for inde-nite period. It is further contended that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of o:ence and the role attributed to the present applicants, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the application may be dismissed. p. 3 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. The allegation in the FIR being that the applicant and his wife who had been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2026 had grabbed the property in question i.e. residential apartment. ii. The submission made on behalf of the applicants that as such, the property belonged to a Trust and whereas, the present applicant and his wife were the bene-ciaries of the Trust more particularly rendering services at the premises of Ashram which was run by the Trust and whereas, the applicants were having been given the property to reside in by the erstwhile head of the Ashram. iii. The submission that as of now, upon demise of the head of the Ashram, there being internal disputes between the Trustees, which has resulted in the FIR being -led more particularly the present applicants supporting one group. iv. As of now, the submission that upon demise of the original founder of the Trust, the Trustees not being clear and whereas, the appointment of the Trustees who have p. 4 initiated the proceedings against the applicants, being subject matter of challenge before the learned Charity Commissioner. v. The submission made by learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay, under instruction, that while the applicants have legal right to remain in possession of the property in question, yet, the applicants, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, vacating the property within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the applicant no.1 and the applicants -ling appropriate undertaking to such e:ect within a period of ten days of release before the learned Trial Court. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, 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 p. 5 applicant on regular bail. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11215037260093/2026 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand, on -ling an undertaking by the applicants within a period of ten days from the date of release as regards vacating the property in question within a period of six weeks from the date of release and whereas the same would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions available to the present applicants and on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by applicant no.1 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the proposed address of residence to the I.O. and p. 6 also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; [f] applicant no.1 to mark presence once a month for a period of three months before the concerned police station. 9. Applicant no.2 shall be released on regular bail on the terms and conditions as mentioned in order dated 03.03.2026. there will be no requirement for furnishing fresh bail bond by applicant no.2. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if they are not required in connection with any other o:ence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. 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. 12. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be p. 7 inGuenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi