Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Merubhai Kathi vs State Of Gujarat on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19369/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 19369 of 2025
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI MERUBHAI KATHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YASH J PATEL(11240) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. TEJAS M. BAROT, SENIOR ADVOCATE for MS RHEA
CHOKSHI(10808) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11192061230058 of 2023 registered with Viramgam Town Police Station, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent - State and learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the investigation of the offence is over and charge sheet is filed. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 16.02.2024 and since then the Applicant is in the custody. The Applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9375 of 2024 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025. However, liberty was granted to the Applicant by this Court, the Applicant has filed an Application therefore after a period of six months if the trial do not proceed in the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:51:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19369/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined meantime. There has been no progress in the trial after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court. Moreover, after the withdrawal of the earlier Application filed by the Applicant, the case of the other co-accused, who had played the significant role in commission of the present offence has been considered by this learned Sessions Court for grant of bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the case of the Applicant is also required to be considered. He further submitted that the only role attributed to the Applicant is of hatching the conspiracy for committing the present offence. The Applicant was not present at the scene of offence at the time of incident and had not played any active role. The co-accused, who have been considered for grant of bail by the learned Sessions Court had actually committed an assault upon the deceased. Therefore, the role attributed to those co-accused was much graver than the role attributed to the present Applicant. Therefore the case of the Applicant deserves consideration for grant of bail. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite 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. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present Applicant had a strong motive for commission of the present offence as the Applicant herein was interested in seeing that the deceased and his wife did not contest the Municipal Elections against him. The continuous threats were being administered by the present Applicant to the deceased as well as his wife as they had filed their nominations for contesting the election in question against the present Applicant. Even on the day prior to the alleged incident, the Applicant had administered threats to the deceased. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:51:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19369/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has also opposed the Application. He submitted that the complainant has challenged the orders passed by the learned Sessions Court granting bail to the other co-accused. The present is the successive application filed by the present Applicant after withdrawal of the earlier application and there being no change in the circumstances, the Application should be dismissed. He also submitted that the Applicant had administered continuous threats to the deceased and his family for having filed nomination for contesting the election against the Applicant. Thus, there was a strong motive for the Applicant to commit the offence. The Applicant had hired the contract killers for doing the deceased to death and a meeting had also taken place between the Applicant and the contract killers i.e. the other co-accused few days prior to the incident at a local hotel. He therefore submitted to dismiss the Application.
7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that though the Applicant has been shown to have been arrested in connection with the present offence in the month of February 2024, this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9375 of 2024 had ordered to enlarge the Applicant on temporary bail for a period of one month on the ground of the Applicant having undergone spine surgery. Thereafter also the Applicant appears to have been enlarged on temporary bail on the same ground on number of occasions.
7.1 The Applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 9375 of 2024 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 since this Court was not inclined to exercise discretion in Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:51:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19369/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined favour of the Applicant. However, having regard to the medical condition of the Applicant, the liberty was granted to the Applicant to file an Application afresh after a period of six months if the trial do not proceed in the meantime and thus the present Application has been filed by the Applicant. However, no medical ground is pressed into service by the Applicant in the present Application.
7.2 From the material available on record, it appears that the deceased as well as his wife had contested the election of the local municipality against the present Applicant, wherein the wife of the deceased was declared elected. The material available on record indicates that the Applicant and the deceased were staunch political rivals to each other. The deceased as well as his wife had filed their nominations for the elections in question against the wish of the present Applicant and therefore the Applicant herein had administered threats to the deceased on several occasions prior to the incident. The wife of the deceased in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer has stated that even on a day prior to the date of incident, a threat was administered to the deceased as well as herself by the present Applicant. The material on record also shows that the Applicant had engaged the contract killers for elimination of the deceased and those contract killers i.e. the co-accused had committed the offence in question.
7.3 It is argued by learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant that the contract killers who had committed an assault upon the deceased were considered for grant of bail by the learned Sessions Court.
7.4 As pointed out by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Complainant that those orders passed by the learned Sessions Court are subject matter of challenge before this Court by the complainant himself. Therefore, this Court would not like to comment anything with regard to the orders passed Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:51:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19369/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined by the learned Sessions Court releasing the other co-accused on bail. 7.5 The material available on record further shows that the Applicant had a strong motive for committing the present offence and it was the Applicant who had hatched a conspiracy for commission of the present offence.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out. The Application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 48 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:51:57 IST 2025