Gujarat High Court
Navalsinh Karubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/07/2025
Pronounced On : 01/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1156 of 2025
(REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
NAVALSINH KARUBHA JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JM PANCHAL, Sr. Adv. with MR KRITIDEV R DAVE for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAL UNWALA, Sr. Adv. with MR DARSHAN VARANDANI for
Original Complainant;
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for regular bail in connectio1n with the FIR being C.R. No.11205038220029/2022 registered with the Nara Police Station, Kutch West, Bhuj for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .
Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J.M. Panchal assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Kirtidev Dave for the appellant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State of Gujarat and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Jal Unwala assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Darshan Varandani for the original complainant.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Panchal submitted that this is a successive bail application preferred by the appellant after the rejection of earlier appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1037/2023 by an order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He, however, submitted that the present appeal has been filed on two grounds i.e. one is on the ground of incarceration and second is on the ground of delay in trial. He submitted that the applicant is arrested on 04.10.2022 and since then, he is in judicial custody and thus, approximately three years have been passed and till date, the trial is not concluded, therefore for indefinite period, the applicant may not be kept behind the bar.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through certain sequence of incidents of events and submitted that after submission of the chargesheet, the trial has already commenced, thereafter on 16.01.2025, the prosecution has submitted closing purshis and in all, the prosecution has examined 27 witnesses and, thereafter on 05.02.2025, the further statement of Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the accused was recorded and, thereafter, the matter was kept for further arguments. He, however, submitted that in fact when the trial has reached upto final state of conclusion of proceeding, at that point of time, the prosecution submitted an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for calling of the witness, which was not entertained by the learned Judge concerned, therefore, writ petition being Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.3282/2025 has been preferred before this court, wherein notice has been issued by this Court and liberty was reserved in favour of the original complainant to submit an application for adjournment and the said petition is still pending for adjudication and thus because of the pendency of the said petition, the trial has not proceeded further and the said petition is now kept on 04.09.2025. He submitted that in fact, in the said petition, the applicant has also filed applications for vacating interim relief as also fixing an early date of hearing but the said applications have not been decided but rather directed to be heard with main matter on a fixed date by tagging them with the main matter and due to paucity of time, the main petition could not be heard uptill now. He, however, submitted that filing of the application under Section 311 of the CrPC as well as petition before this Court is nothing but a dilatory tactic to prolong the Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined trial, for which, the appellant has to suffer without any fault on his part.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, at this stage, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 CJ (SC) 147 and submitted that in the said case, considering the period of incarceration and delay in trial, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of said accused for bail. He further submitted that even in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is well-established principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception". It is, therefore, urged that considering the facts of the case as also considering the period of incarceration, the applicant may be granted bail by imposing suitable conditions.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Unwala for the original complainant has objected the present appeal contending that the appellant is involved in serious offence of murder and as this is a successive bail application, it may not be considered. He submitted that as stated above, the present appeal is preferred only on the ground of delay and period of incarceration and entire sequence of incident of events have been stated by learned advocate for the appellant in a very graphical manner. He submitted that as can be seen from the submissions canvassed by learned advocate Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined for the appellant as well as from the documents produced on record that, the trial has already proceeded further and it is at fag end and only one witness remains to be examined if at all the application of the original complainant would be entertained by this Court. He submitted that in fact, the injured victim had given information to the doctor concerned, who had given vardhi to concerned Police Station, copy of which is placed on record, wherein the name as well as specific role of the present appellant is clearly mentioned, however, copy of janava jog entry is neither forming part of the investigation papers nor learned APP has produced it along with the documentary list and when the said fact has come to the notice of the complainant, the aforesaid application was submitted with an intent to bring correct facts on record and, therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the stand taken by the complainant can be said to be an attempt to delay the proceedings of trial but it is nothing but an attempt to place on record important documents on record.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammed Sajjad Mohammed Imtiyaz Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1657 as well as in case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2024) 5 SCC 403 as well as the decision of this Court in case of Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Dineshbhai Jethabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat delivered in Criminal Misc. Application No.16201/2024. He, therefore, submitted that considering the settled proposition of law and the fact that this is a successive bail application, the present appeal may not be considered and it may be dismissed.
8. Learned APP Mr. Soni has also opposed the grant of present appeal contending that there is no change circumstances except the period of incarceration and the delay in trial. He further submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the trial is at fag end and it would be concluded within near future, therefore, the discretion may not be exercised in favour of the appellant and the present appeal may be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. I have also considered the reasoning given by the concerned court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.
10. It is the settled position of the law that, at this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined necessary and should be avoided.
11. So far as the maintainability of a successive bail application is concerned, it is no longer res- integra that the same is maintainable. However, the question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is as to whether without any fresh new and changed circumstances, a Court should consider a subsequent bail application ignoring its previous order rejecting the previous bail application or not. In my considered opinion, the same would not be possible. A subsequent bail application is maintainable but consideration of the prayer of bail would depend on the facts as to whether fresh and new grounds pleaded at this juncture are justifiable or not?
12. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. It is also a settled position of law that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances and the changed circumstances must be substantial one which has direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely a cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequences. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. The Apex Court in the case of Kalyanchandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42 while dealing with the issue of successive bail application has observed that without change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier rejection order which is not permissible under the criminal law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that while entertaining such undefined consequent bail application, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from one taken in the earlier application.
13. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under, "While granting bail, the court has to keep Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
14. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is a fact on record that the applicant is involved in a very serious offence of murder and attempt to murder and in connection with the said offence, he is in jail since his arrest. Further as stated above, this is a successive bail application preferred by the appellant, which is maintainable, Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined however earlier bail applications preferred by the applicant were not considered as no case of bail was made out considering the allegations leveled against the appellant as also considering the chargesheet papers, which clearly goes on to show the involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime. Thus when earlier bail applications were considered on merits, at the time of considering the present application, which is successive, merits of the case cannot be considered. Further as can be found out from the submissions canvassed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the present appeal is preferred solely on two counts i.e. one on the ground of long incarceration and second on the ground of delay in trial. However having considered the submissions of the parties and having considered the documents available on record, it is found out that the trial is smoothly going on uptill now and it reached at the verge of conclusion because the examination of the witnesses is already concluded and further statement of the accusedis also recorded over and it is at the stage of arguments and thus within near future, it would be concluded. However as contended by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the original complainant preferred an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall a witness and on rejection of the same, writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. It is, however, required to be Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined noted that in fact, janava jog entry given by the doctor from the hospital is not part and parcel of the chargesheet papers, therefore, the application under Section 311 of the CrPC has been preferred for the purpose of reopening the stage of evidence on Dr. Tanzim Abdulrahim Vakaliya, who had given janava jog entry, wherein specific name and role of the applicant is clearly mentioned but the said document was not forming part of the chargesheet papers, therefore, the said application was preferred and against the rejection of it, writ petition has been filed and the hearing of the said writ petition is kept on 04.09.2025 and thus, it would be heard and decided. Over and above that, as stated above, now if the said writ petition is allowed, in that event, only one witness is to be examined and if the said writ petition would not be allowed, in that event, arguments would be started. Therefore, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant with regard to adoption of dilatory tactics on the part of the original complainant is not found justifiable one as the original complainant is also having legitimate right to keep watch upon the procedure and if need arises, in that event, the application be submitted to bring correct facts on record as per his opinion. Further merely because of filing an application by the original complainant cannot be construed at this juncture that it was submitted solely with an intent to Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined delay the procedure of trial, therefore on that ground, the present application, which is a successive bail application, cannot be entertained.
15. At this stage, I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao, reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that once a bail application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. Granting it would be virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. A substantial change is one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. It has been held as under :-
"7. Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the founding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It follows therefore that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. That law permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. Article 22 casts certain obligations on the authorities in the event of arrest of an individual accused of the commission of a crime against society or the Nation. In cases of undertrials charged with the commission of an offence or offences the court is generally called upon to decide whether to release him on bail or to commit him to jail. This decision has to be made, mainly in non-bailable cases, having regard to the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which it was committed, the background of the accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution, etc. In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. One such Application No. 36 of 1989 was rejected by Suresh, J. himself. Undeterred the respondent went on preferring successive applications for bail. All such pending bail applications were rejected by Puranik, Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined J. by a common order on 6-6-1989. Unfortunately, Puranik, J. was not aware of the pendency of yet another bail application No. 995 of 1989 otherwise he would have disposed it of by the very same common order. Before the ink was dry on Puranik, J.'s order, it was upturned by the impugned order. It is not as if the court passing the impugned order was not aware of the decision of Puranik, J.; in fact there is a reference to the same in the impugned order. Could this be done in the absence of new facts and changed circumstances? What is important to realise is that in Criminal Application No. 375 of 1989, the respondent had made an identical request as is obvious from one of the prayers (extracted earlier) made therein. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Between the two orders there was a gap of only two days and it is nobody's case that during these two days drastic changes had taken place Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed reversing all earlier orders including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact-situation. In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the court's time as a judge familiar with the Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency. In their view that we take we are fortified by the observations of this Court in para 5 of the judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [(1987) 2 SCC 684] . For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the fact-situation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as 'a bit out of the ordinary'. Judicial restraint demands that we say no more.
(emphasis supplied)
16. At this stage, I would also like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., delivered in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the application for bail, has opined that once the trial commences, the High Court should not exercise the discretion as it would be fatal to the prosecution case. Paragraph No.16 of the said decision reads as under, "16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."
17. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through its Director, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while considering an application for regular bail, the Courts shall have to take into consideration, the following aspects,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge;
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further, observed at Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus;
"10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted.
16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."
19. Apart from the above, I have also considered merits of the case, which has already been discussed while rejecting earlier bail application preferred by the applicant and found the active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. Therefore on merit also, the applicant has no case.
20. I have also considered the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant, however having considered the said decision, there cannot Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1156/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and this being discretionary relief, which requires to be granted judiciously, the said decision would be of no help to the present applicant at this juncture considering the nature of offence, role attributed to the applicant and played by him as also the fact that the applicant is involved in serious offence of murder and attempt to murder.
21. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, perusing the records and the law on the issue, I do not find any substantial change in the circumstance so far as merit of the case is concerned and do not find it a fit case for bail.
22. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
Notice is discharged. However, it is open for the appellant to file fresh application for bail before this Court if the trial would not conclude on or before 31.12.2025.
23. Needless to say that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:23:12 IST 2025