Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Zuheb @ Juheb @ Zoeb vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2026
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1334/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-07-2025
in CRA(RB) No. 1117/2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad]
ZUHEB @ JUHEB @ ZOEB Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 18-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv.
Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR
Mr. Kanav Khatana, Adv.
Ms. Ojeswita Singh, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv.
Ms. Swati Yadav, Adv.
Mr. I H Syed, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG (not present)
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G.
Ms. Disha Thakkar, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv.
Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.03.19
17:05:46 IST
Reason:
2
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in FIR
No.164/2015 registered with Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police
Station which was later registered as RC No.13/2015 with NIA Delhi
Police Station at New Delhi for the offences punishable under
Sections 114, 120-B, 153-A, 201, 304 and 449 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of the
UAPA, 1967 and Sections 25(1B)(A) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959
and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that apart from the prolonged period of incarceration undergone,
the petitioner also seeks bail on the ground of parity. Reliance
has been made on the earlier orders passed by this Court, along
with the orders passed by the High Court qua the co-accused.
The learned ASG appearing for the respondent would submit
that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing. The
delay in trial has occasioned due to the petitioner’s own conduct
as he did not engage a lawyer for quite some time. He has also
extended some threats to witnesses as recorded in the impugned
order. He is the main shooter in the incident from whom recovery
has also been made.
We are conscious of the earlier order(s) passed by this
Court granting bail to co-accused. However, the case of the
petitioner stands on a different footing. The allegations against
him are quite serious apart from the fact that recovery has been
3
made from him.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to
complete the same within a period of nine months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not completed as
aforestated, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh
bail application, in which case, the impugned order will not stand
in the way. Needless to state that the petitioner shall fully
cooperate with the conduct and completion of the trial.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed
with the aforesaid liberty.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
