High Court Enlarges Accused on Regular Bail After Five Years in Custody, Imposes Travel and Reporting Conditions

A single-judge bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi of the Gujarat High Court heard a successive regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging continued incarceration after filing of the charge-sheet in an offence registered at Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot City.

The court allowed the application and ordered the accused's release on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions and a personal bond of Rs.15,000 with one surety of like amount. The court noted that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet was filed, that the applicant had been in custody since 26.12.2020, and that trial progress was slow with only one of 108 witnesses examined. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 was of the opinion that this was a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail." The order quoted the trial limits imposed, including that the applicant must "not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty" and must surrender any passport and mark presence at the police station on alternate Mondays for six months.

Background:
The application arose from FIR C.R. No.11208044202185 of 2020. The applicant, who was arrested on December 26, 2020, sought successive bail after a charge-sheet had been submitted. Counsel for the applicant argued that the accused had been falsely implicated under the GUJCTOC Act, denied membership of any organised crime syndicate, and had already been acquitted in three of four past offences relied upon by the investigating officer; one FIR relied upon had been quashed by this Court. It was further submitted that eleven accused were arrayed in the charge-sheet, most of whom had been granted bail, including the alleged gang leader, and that trial delay resulted principally from non-availability of co-accused. The applicant’s earlier bail application had been rejected on account of an earlier period of absconding while on temporary bail, but counsel noted that the applicant had subsequently been acquitted of the implicated murder charge.

The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed bail on the grounds of the gravity of allegations and the applicant’s past conduct, arguing that the earlier rejection of bail attained finality and that the applicant’s antecedents showed a pattern of serious offences. The High Court considered both sides, reviewed the record of investigation and the status of trial, and expressly took into account the Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI ([2012] 1 SCC 40) in relation to the exercise of discretion in bail matters.

Weighing incarceration period, limited trial progress, acquittals in earlier cases relied upon by the investigating agency, and the fact that most co-accused had been enlarged on bail, the High Court exercised its discretion in favour of relief. The court directed release on a personal bond of Rs.15,000 with one surety of the same amount and imposed conditions including surrender of passport within a week, prohibition on leaving Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge, mandatory reporting to the police station on alternate Mondays for six months between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., furnishing and not changing residence without court permission, and a restriction from entering Saurashtra and Ahmedabad district revenue limits except for court attendance and required police station reporting. The court clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by preliminary observations made at the bail stage and left liberty to the trial court to modify the conditions in accordance with law. The order made the rule absolute to the extent of the directions and allowed direct service.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CR.MA/2289/2026
Case Title: SHAHRUKH @RAJA AALLARAKHABHAI JUNEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearances:
For the Applicant(s): Dhruv Toliya (9249)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Niraj Sharma, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 63