Gujarat High Court
Imroz Idrish Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 02/07/2025
Pronounced On : 09/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 8967 of 2025
(FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
IMROZ IDRISH SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, Sr. Adv. with MR AMIT D SHAH(11232) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present application, which is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the withdrawal of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.14740/2023 by an order dated 12.03.2024, is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210054222601/2022 registered with the Sachin Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Amit Shah for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Syed submitted that this is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the withdrawal of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.14740/2023 by an order dated 12.03.2024. He, however, submitted that at the time of withdrawal of earlier application, liberty was reserved for the applicant to file fresh application if the trial would not conclude on or before 31.03.2025 and admittedly in the present case, the trial is going on and it will take time to conclude, therefore, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the applicant has been arrested on 25.10.2022 and since then, he is in judicial custody i.e. more than two and half year, however, the trial is not yet concluded and it is going on at snail speed and it is likely to take considerable long time to conclude, therefore for indefinite period, the applicant may not be kept behind the bar.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that at the time of submission of the chargesheet, the prosecution has put reliance upon 65 witnesses, out of which, 11 maximum witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are to be examined, therefore, Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined trial will take considerable time to conclude. In support of the said submission, he has referred to Rojkam of the trial court produced on record. He further submitted that even otherwise also, on merit, the applicant is having good case but as this is a successive bail application, he is not touching the merits of the case.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as the role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, the applicant was one of the passengers sitting in the car, wherein other accused persons were carrying prohibited substance, however, those accused have persons have already been considered for bail either by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or by this Hon'ble Court and the role attributed to the present applicant is identical or slightly lesser than those accused. He, therefore submitted that on the ground of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, at this stage, has placed reliance upon following decisions, (1) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vivek Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 756; (2) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pinkesh @ Pinko Shantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 530;
(3) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 228;
(4) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sabir Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1275;
7. Referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that in the aforesaid cases, the concerned High Court rejected the bail application of the accused concerned, who are involved in the offence of NDPS, however considering the facts of the case as also period of incarceration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exercised the discretion in favour of the accused concerned and released them on bail pending trial.
8. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel, has drawn attention of this Court towards the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the period of incarceration spent by the accused concerned and released them on bail imposing suitable conditions. Referring to the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. It is submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make a cursory glance upon the said decisions, in that event, it is found out 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 Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined case as also considering the period of incarceration, the applicant may be granted bail by imposing suitable conditions.
9. On the other hand, learned APP has objected the grant of present application looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint as well as papers of the chargesheet. He submitted that the present application is a successive bail application after the withdrawal of earlier bail application. He submitted that there is no dispute about the liberty granted by this Court while withdrawing earlier bail application, however, now the trial has proceeded further and under the instructions, it is submitted that 17 witnesses have been examined and thus, the trial has proceeded further. He submitted that in fact, the present application is preferred without disclosing any change in the circumstances except delay in trial and the applicant has failed to show any change in the circumstances and the reasons, which are mentioned in the memo of application, were at all available at the earlier point of time when earlier bail application was withdrawn and here in the present case, commercial quantity of narcotic substance was seized by the raiding party from the accused. He further submitted that as stated above, this is a successive bail application and, hence, change in the circumstance is required to Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined be pointed out by learned advocate but he has failed to show and in absence of any changed circumstances, this application cannot be entertained and it may be rejected.
10. Learned APP submitted that the present application is preferred solely on the ground that the trial has not concluded within time framed schedule and the period of incarceration spent by the applicant. He, however, referred to the chargesheet papers and submitted that the role of the applicant is described in a graphical manner and the said role has already been considered by this Court while considering earlier bail application preferred by the applicant. He, however, submitted that in fact, from the chargesheet papers, the role attributed to the applicant herein is clearly spelt out. He further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, in that event, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to secure his presence and it would affect the trial also as the same is in progress and few witnesses are to be examined. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained.
11. 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 Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.
12. 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 necessary and should be avoided.
13. 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 have been pleaded and are available or not.
14. 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 Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined application afresh and to take a view different from one taken in the earlier application.
15. 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 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."
Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
16. Considering the above decision, it is required to be noted that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
17. Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the parties and having gone through the record available on record, it is found out that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, have called for Mephedrone Drug from outside Gujarat and after having received it, the accused have distributed it to other accused for its circulation and/or for selling it knowingfully well that the said drug is prohibited in State of Gujarat and by consuming it, it would adversely affect the health of the persons as also affect the nation and when the said narcotic substance was being carried by the accused, a raid was carried out, wherein the accused persons were apprehended with narcotic substance and name of other accused including the applicant had come on surface during the course of their investigation, therefore, he was arrested and sent behind the bar. Admittedly, as stated above, this is a successive bail application, therefore, merit of Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the case is not required to be considered. However having considered the material available on record, the involvement of the applicant is clearly found out, wherein huge quantity of narcotic substance has been seized by the raiding party during the course of raid, which is commercial quantity. Over and above that, though it is contended that the trial has not proceeded further, in fact, substantial trial has already proceeded further and 17 witnesses have been examined out of total witnesses.
18. In cases falling under NDPS Act, some factors are required to be taken into consideration before deciding whether to grant bail in NDPS cases. Some of the key criteria include:
1. Nature and Quantity of Drugs: The courts assess the seriousness of the offense and the quantity of drugs involved.
2. Role of the Accused: The court examines the role of the accused in the alleged offense.
3. Antecedents and Criminal History: The past criminal record of the accused is also taken into account.
4. Possibility of Tampering with Evidence or Influencing Witnesses: The court evaluates whether releasing the accused on bail might hinder the investigation or pose a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
19. Considering the above factors for the grant of bail in case of NDPS Act, it is required to be Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined mentioned that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of transporting contraband articles and the role played by him that he had gone to Maharashtra along with co-accused and purchased narcotic substance, wherein he had given certain amount and the said fact is fortified from the documents collected during the course of investigation. Further, grant of bail in such offence falling under the NDPS Act is a subject of great importance and legal scrutiny. While the NDPS Act aims to combat drug-related crimes effectively, it is essential to balance the enforcement of the law with safeguarding the fundamental right to personal liberty. The courts play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and just approach to granting bail in these cases. Each case is unique and must be assessed independently, taking into account the specific circumstances and evidence presented. In the case on hand, as stated above, there are ample material and evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of crime.
20. The contours of Section 37 of the Act have been analysed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 429. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudged the validity of the order on bail granted by the High Court in a case registered under the Act. The Hon'ble Court extracted the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the introduction of amended Section 37 of the Act through Bill No. 125 of 1988. It is relevant to extract those for the present analysis, which reads as:
"6. The aforesaid section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No. 125 of 1988 thus:
"Even though the major offences are non-
bailable by virtue of the level of
punishments, on technical grounds, drug
offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt."(emphasis supplied)
7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death- blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [(1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para
24) "24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine."
21. Thus, what is evident from the above is that the offences prescribed under the Act are not only a Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country. Such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Thus, to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court must stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while considering the question bail in such matters.
22. As far as condition under Section 37(b)(i) is concerned, there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It gives effect to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Since the crime is an act against the society, the legislature has contemplated that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose a bail application under the Act. Additionally, under Section 37(b)
(ii) of the NDPS Act, the Court is not required to be merely satisfied about the dual conditions i.e., prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offence while on bail, but the court must have "reasonable grounds‟ for such satisfaction. for such satisfaction.
23. It is found out from the arguments canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant that main argument of learned advocate for the applicant is Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined with regard to delay in trial and period of incarceration spent by the applicant in jail and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India relying upon the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, however, required to be noted that except above facts, learned advocate for the applicant has failed to point out any chance in circumstances. Therefore in absence of any change in the circumstances, once again present application is preferred agitating same grounds, which in the opinion of this Court, is not available to the applicant in a successive bail application.
24. 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 acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 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."
25. 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;
26. 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 Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined absolute and unconditional rule about when 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."
27. Apart from the above, I have also considered merits of the case, which has already been discussed while considering earlier bail application preferred by the applicant and found the active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime in connivance with other co- accused. Therefore on merit also, the applicant has no case.
28. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8967/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined by the learned advocate for the applicant. There cannot 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 decisions 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 has committed offence against the nation.
29. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, perusing the records and the law on the issue, there is no fresh and new ground available in the present successive bail application. Therefore, 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.
30. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
Notice is discharged. However, it is expected that the trial court concerned shall proceed with the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.
31. 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 Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:26:32 IST 2025