Gujarat HC Grants Bail in Ambaji Forest Officials Assault Case, Flags Sessions Court's Excess of Jurisdiction

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel granted regular bail to three accused in an Ambaji police station FIR and flagged that the Sessions Court had prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS while directing forwarding of the bail order to the District Magistrate, Chief Secretary, and senior police officials.

The High Court of Gujarat, on 2 July 2026, allowed three connected bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No. C.R. No. 11195002250650/2025 registered at Ambaji Police Station, Banaskantha. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly, found that the material on record — essentially a video recording not forming part of the charge-sheet — was insufficient to deny bail, and that the applicants appeared to have been implicated on the basis of self-implicatory statements. The order also surfaced a separate and significant concern: the In-charge Sessions Judge, Banaskantha had, in an earlier bail rejection dated 8 May 2026, issued directions forwarding the matter to the District Magistrate, the Principal Secretary (GAD), the Chief Secretary of Gujarat, and “Higher Ups” of the police department, which this Court found to be a prima facie excess of jurisdiction.

The FIR and the Charges

The FIR alleges that the accused assaulted forest officials and police officials while they were discharging their duties and caused serious injuries. The offences registered span a wide range: Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 125, 326(f), 121(1), 221, 132, 126(2), 324(5), 61(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Three applicants sought bail through three separate but connected applications — Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12593/2026, 12605/2026, and 12607/2026 — which were taken up together and disposed of by a common oral order.

Differentiated Roles Across the Three Applicants

The Court examined the specific role attributed to each applicant as disclosed in the charge-sheet. The applicant in CR.MA 12605/2026 was alleged to be a prime conspirator and was described as being armed with an axe or sharp-edged weapon. The applicant in CR.MA 12593/2026 was alleged to have been present during the confrontation armed with a stick. The applicant in CR.MA 12607/2026 was alleged to have been present in the confrontation armed with a wooden log.

Advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik, appearing with Mr. M.B. Dhonde for the applicants, argued that the charge-sheet had been filed and no useful purpose would be served by continued detention. He submitted that the applicants were willing to abide by any conditions the Court might impose.

Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni, appearing for the State, opposed bail, contending that the nature of the offences and the roles emerging from the charge-sheet did not warrant exercise of discretion in the applicants' favour.

Why the Court Exercised Discretion in Favour of the Applicants

Justice Kariel identified four considerations that weighed in favour of bail.

The primary evidentiary concern was that the only material against the applicants was a video recording of the alleged incident, which was neither part of the charge-sheet nor did it appear that the applicants were identifiably part of that recording, as submitted by the applicants' counsel. The Court also noted that the applicants appeared to have been implicated based on self-implicatory statements made by the applicants themselves, which the Court treated as a factor warranting caution.

The Court also took note of parity: a co-ordinate Bench had, by order dated 17 June 2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12583/2026, already enlarged a co-accused with a similar role. Denying bail to the present applicants would have been inconsistent with that position.

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40, as the governing precedent on the exercise of bail discretion.

The Sessions Court Order That Troubled This Court

While granting bail, Justice Kariel drew attention to what he described as a “very disturbing aspect” of the proceedings below. The In-charge Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, by order dated 8 May 2026, had rejected the bail applications of the present applicants and made observations that the Court found to be in direct conflict with observations made by this Court in an earlier order dated 27 April 2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7656/2026.

Beyond the conflict with the High Court's earlier observations, the Sessions Court's order went further. It directed that the order be placed before the District Magistrate, the Principal Secretary (GAD), the Chief Secretary of Gujarat, and “Higher Ups” of the police department for implementation of Supreme Court directions in Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, reported in 2018 (10) SCC 713, and Tehseen Poonwalla v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3354 — both decisions concerning mob violence and mob lynching. The Sessions Court also made a prima facie observation that the offence committed by the applicants amounted to land grabbing and that the District Magistrate needed to take appropriate action.

Justice Kariel found that these directions went well beyond the Sessions Court's jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs bail applications after filing of a charge-sheet.

The Parallel Challenge Before a Co-ordinate Bench

At this stage, both counsel — Mr. Yagnik for the applicants and Mr. Soni for the State — pointed out that the very order in question had already been challenged by the applicants in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 7434/2026 before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, specifically with reference to the direction forwarding the decision to the named authorities. A co-ordinate Bench had stayed that order and the stay was continuing.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench was already seized of the matter, the present Court ought not to pass separate orders against the Sessions Court order.

Justice Kariel accepted that the Special Criminal Application had been filed by the applicants themselves and was limited to the question of expunging observations. However, the Court declined to simply step back. When the same order was placed before this Court as part of the bail record, the Court held that the prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction by the Sessions Court “could not be and ought not to be overlooked.”

Direction to Law Officers Branch

Rather than passing a separate order directly against the Sessions Court's directions — given the pending Special Criminal Application — Justice Kariel directed that a copy of the present applications be forwarded to the Law Officers Branch. The Law Officers Branch was directed to remain present through a learned advocate on 28 July 2026 to address the Court's observations about the Sessions Court's conduct.

Direct service of the order was permitted.

Outcome

All three Criminal Misc. Applications were allowed. Each applicant was ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. C.R. No. 11195002250650/2025 registered at Ambaji Police Station, Banaskantha, on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The standard conditions imposed included: not misusing liberty; not acting against the interest of the prosecution; surrendering passports within one week to the lower court; not leaving the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court; furnishing the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and the Court; and not changing residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.

An additional condition was imposed specifically on the applicant in CR.MA 12605/2026: he was prohibited from entering the limits of Ambaji Police Station, Banaskantha, for six months from the date of release, and was directed to mark his presence once a month for six months before Danta Police Station, Banaskantha. The applicants in CR.MA 12593/2026 and 12607/2026 were directed to mark their presence once a month for six months before the concerned police station.

The Court clarified that the trial court would not be influenced by the preliminary observations made at the bail stage, and that the concerned Court would be free to modify, delete, or relax conditions in accordance with law.