Gujarat High Court
Aebhalbhai S/O Jilubhai Ravatbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.
2581 of 2025
==========================================================
AEBHALBHAI S/O JILUBHAI RAVATBHAI DHANDHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SR SHARMA(5686) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. YASHMA R MATHUR(6374) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.ALOK M THAKKAR(6510) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 11/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present Appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for Regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellant has prayed for enlarging him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No. 11211010230097 / 2023 registered with Chuda Police Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 307, 326, 325, 335, 427, 504, 506(2), 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of The Gujarat Police Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Yashma R. Mathur for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Alok M. Thakkar appearing on behalf of the original complainant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent-State.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant Ms. Yashma has submitted that, the investigation being over, charge sheet has been filed. The appellant has not been named in the FIR. Though the presence of the appellant is established at the scene of offence, he has not taken part in commission of the alleged offence. According to Ms. Yashma, the discovery of the weapons were at the behest of accused no. 11 Dilipbhai Najbhai Khachar and the appellant was not carrying any weapon at the time of alleged offence. Ms. Yashma has drawn the attention of the court towards the FIR submitting that, as per the prosecution case, the accused nos. 1 and 2 had main roles to play in the offence. Ms. Yashma has also submitted that, since the appellant was present at the scene of offence, he came to be identified in the T.I. Parade which was conducted by the Executive Magistrate. It were Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined the co-accused Suresh, Vanraj and Vikram who were carrying weapons. The prosecution as against 12 accused being named in the charge sheet had shown only 8 weapons. Ms. Yashma has also drawn the attention of the court towards the FSL report, from wherein, it is revealed that, the blood stains from the pants of the appellant belong to him only. There is no iota of evidence as regards, the appellant's participation in the entire offence. The appellant is in judicial custody since 19.07.2023. Hence, the present application be allowed and the appellant be released on regular bail subject to necessary conditions.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Alok M. Thakkar, who has strongly objected this bail application submitting that, the Co- ordinate Bench had rejected the bail application of accused No. 6 Nagbhai Harsurbhai alias Harsubhai Khachar vide order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2075 of 2024 dated 07.10.2024 though, he too was not carrying any weapon at the time of incident. Mr. Thakkar has also drawn the attention of the court towards the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 758 of 2025 and 3117 of 2025 preferred by accused No. 11 Dilipbhai Najbhai Khachar and Accused No. 12 Vanrajbhai, son of Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Dhirubhai Ladhubhai Bhojak who both were supposedly armed with weapons at the time of commission of offence. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants in the respective Criminal Appeals had withdrawn the said appeals on 16.12.2025 and 18.02.2026, respectively. Mr. Thakkar has further submitted that, the appellant was called by accused No. 11 Dilip Khachar and accused No. 11 Dilip was called by accused No. 12 Vanrajbhai Bhojak. So far as the role of the appellant in the offence would be concerned, it would be matters of trial. At this juncture, the court should not weigh the evidence in a manner that it would prejudice the prosecution case. Hence, Mr. Thakkar has urged the court to reject the application.
5. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent- State who has drawn the attention of the court towards the fact that, as per the prosecution case the appellant was shown to be present at the scene of offence with a weapon. He has been identified during the T.I. parade. The offence pertains to murder of two individuals and committing dacoity of Rs. 2,09,000/- wherein, four witnesses were also injured. Learned APP has also drawn the attention of the court towards the report forwarded Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined by the concerned Sessions Court, wherein it has been mentioned that the trial has been delayed because of the appellant herein. Hence, Mr. Joshi has urged the court to reject the application.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 16.10.2025, had called for the report from the concerned Principal District Judge as regards, the status of the trial pursuant to which the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge of Limbdi had forwarded her report dated 06.11.2025, wherein, it is unequivocally mentioned that, the charge sheet of the case was submitted on 12.08.2023 before the Additional Sessions Court at Limbdi. However, the appellant herein and accused nos. 2, 6 to 8, 11 and 12 in spite of being repeatedly instructed to engage advocates for their defence, were not ready to engage their advocates through legal aid. So also, twice, they had engaged advocates and later on the said advocates were removed by the said accused. It is further mentioned by the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge that, the present appellant on 01.09.2025 had given an undertaking before the court that he would engage his advocate on the very next date. However, on 15.09.2025, he had not engaged any advocate, and thereafter also, till 13.11.2025, the appellant had Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined not engaged any advocate to defend him. Thus, it appears that the appellant herein along with other co-accused with a malafide intention to protract the trial, have till date, not engaged their respective advocates, to defend them during the trial. This court cannot be oblivious to the fact that, the trial has not commenced since two and a half years after the charge sheet having been laid before the concerned Sessions Court at Limbdi, because of the deliberate and persistent inaction on part of the appellant and other co-accused.
7. The FIR has been lodged by one Parulben Khodabhai Premjibhai Parmar who appears to be an eyewitness to the incident. She in her FIR categorically stated that, on the fateful day, she along with the deceased was travelling back home in the Tractor. The said Tractor had been intercepted by the accused persons, including the present Applicant. The present Applicant is also alleged to have been armed with a stick, which was covered with metal rings as well as metal cover at the bottom, and had assaulted the deceased persons with the said deadly weapon, because of which two persons had died, whereas four persons had sustained severe injuries.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2581/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined
8. At the cost of repetition, the trial before the concerned Learned Sessions Court has not commenced because of the deliberate and malafide intention of the appellant as well as other co-accused. This court is in agreement with the submission of learned advocate Mr. Thakkar that as of now, the role of the appellant cannot be segregated from the other accused persons, and as per the prosecution case, all the accused having entered into a criminal conspiracy, the role of the appellant in the offence would be akin to that of the other co-accused. The court at this juncture, is not required to sift through the pages of the charge sheet, rather, filing of the charge sheet against the appellant itself suggests that, the prima facie involvement of the appellant in the crime is established by the prosecution.
9. In the event, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application is hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANIRUDH OJHA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 20:44:29 IST 2026