The observations came on Thursday when the HC was hearing three regular bail applications filed by the applicants in connection with an FIR registered at Ambaji Police Station over the alleged attack on forest and police personnel on duty near the temple town of Ambaji on December 13, 2025.

The FIR invoked a string of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, apart from provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Gujarat Police Act. According to the prosecution, one of the applicants was alleged to be a “prime conspirator” who was armed with an axe or other sharp-edged weapon, while the remaining two were alleged to have been carrying a stick and a wooden log.

Appearing for the applicants, advocate AJ Yagnik argued that with the chargesheet already filed, “no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for an indefinite period”, and assured the court that the accused would abide by any conditions imposed upon them. The state, represented by additional public prosecutor Hardik Soni, opposed the plea, contending that the allegations and the roles attributed to the accused in the chargesheet did not warrant the exercise of discretion in their favour.

Justice Kariel, in the oral order dated July 2, noted that “there is no material against the present applicants except a video recording of the alleged incident”, adding that the video was neither part of the chargesheet nor did it prima facie establish their presence at the scene. Their implication, the court observed, appeared to rest substantially on “self-implicatory statement by the applicants themselves”.

The court also took note of an earlier order of a coordinate bench granting bail to a co-accused with a similar role in the case and, relying upon the SC rulings held it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail.

The HC granted bail to the three accused on furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000 each with sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passports and cooperation with the investigation. The accused described by the prosecution as the “prime conspirator” was additionally barred from entering the jurisdiction of Ambaji police station for six months and directed to mark his presence once every month at Danta Police Station.

The HC noted that while rejecting the same applicants’ bail pleas on May 8, the in-charge sessions judge had made “scathing observations” which appeared to directly conflict with findings recorded by the High Court in an earlier proceeding arising out of the same incident.

The sessions court had directed that copies of its order be forwarded to the district magistrate, the principal secretary of the General Administration Department, the chief secretary and “higher ups” in the police department for implementation of the Supreme Court’s mob-lynching guidelines laid down in previous rulings, while also prima facie characterising the dispute as “nothing but an offence of land grabbing”.

The High Court held that such directions amounted to the sessions court having “well exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS”.

The court directed that copies of the applications be forwarded to the High Court’s Law Officers Branch and ordered its representative to remain present on the next date of hearing on July 28 to address the observations made by the court.

The case stems from violence that erupted on December 13, 2025, at Padaliya village in Danta taluka of Banaskantha district, near Ambaji, during a forest department plantation drive being carried out under police protection. According to the FIR lodged by a forest department official, a crowd of nearly 500 persons attacked government officials using stones, bows and arrows, swords and axes, while also blocking exit routes by felling trees and placing rocks on roads. The police had registered offences including attempt to murder, dacoity and damage to public property against around 500 persons, with 26 individuals specifically named in the FIR.