IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 27797 of 2025 ========================================================== RITESH SURESHBHAI DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR NIRAJ SHARMA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 13/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Mr.Kishan Daiya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Niraj Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has )led this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being NCB/AZU/CR-04/2024 registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi for the o5ence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that p. 2 considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is )led no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for inde)nite period. It is further contended that the applicant is 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 o5ence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. The case against the present applicant is that he was present in a premise i.e. residential premise of one Kirit Vaghela where the factory for manufacturing of the p. 3 contraband – Mephedrone was being run by the accused and whereas, the case of the present applicant is that he was promised 20% of the proceeds of the main accused for working in the factory in question. ii. While it would prima facie appear that the presence of the present applicant in the premises is very clear and the role of the present applicant is also very clear, yet, considering the fact that the co-accused Deepak, Harish and Shiv Ratan having identical role having been considered by learned Coordinate Benches vide orders dated 14.10.2025, 16.01.2026 and 19.06.2025, the bene)t of parity should accrue in favour of the applicant also. 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. 4 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 FIR being NCB/AZU/CR-04/2024 registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi, on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he 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 present address of residence to the I.O. and 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] mark presence once a month for a period of six months p. 5 before the concerned police station. 9. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other o5ence 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. 10. 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. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be inIuenced 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. 12. 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