[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sahil Kayumbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6539 of 2026
==========================================================
SAHIL KAYUMBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUNUS U MALEK(5343) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 21/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.U. Malek appearing for
the applicant and learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for
the respondent - State.
2. The applicant has filed this application which is a
successive bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on
regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11213023230306 of 2023 registered with Jetpur Taluka Police
Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 363,
366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6
and 17 of the POCSO Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Y.U. Malek, appearing for the
applicant, submits that the present application is a successive
bail application and the earlier bail application preferred by
the applicant was not entertained by this Hon'ble Court,
however, liberty was reserved for the applicant to approach
this Court after the recording of the victim's deposition,
therefore, the present application is filed by the applicant.
Learned advocate Mr. Malek submits that the applicant is in
judicial custody since 05.06.2023, therefore, considering the
period of incarceration already spent by the applicant, it is
requested that this bail application be entertained by this
Court by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Learned
advocate Mr. Malek submits that in the charge-sheet, total 22
persons were cited as witnesses, out of them only seven have
been examined till date. Therefore, trial will take a
considerable long time to conclude the trial, and the applicant
may not be kept behind bars for an indefinite period through
no fault of his own. Learned advocate Mr. Malek further
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recently reiterated
the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Furthermore, the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents.
Considering the above factual aspects, learned senior advocate
Mr. Tolia submits that the bail application deserves to be
allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
4. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah has vehemently objected
to the present application, and submitted that as this is a
successive bail application, the merits of the case need not be
reconsidered. He further submitted that while rejecting the
earlier bail application, liberty was reserved in favour of the
applicant to approach this Court only after the recording of
the victim's deposition, copies of the victim's deposition are
already annexed to the memo of the petition.He submitted
that a glance at the contents of the said deposition reveals
that the victim has deposed in a categorical manner regarding
the incident and she has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts, the bail
application may not be entertained at this juncture, especially
since the trial has already commenced, seven witnessed out of
22 witnesses have already been examined, and the trial is
likely to be concluded soon. He further submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan ,
observed that in serious offences where the trial has already
commenced, bail applications should generally not be
entertained.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. It is a well settled principle of law that when the
successive application comes before the Court, the Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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.
9. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties and having gone through the
material available on record, there is no dispute about the
fact that while withdrawing earlier application liberty was
granted to the applicant to approach again after the recording
of the victim's deposition and pursuant to the said liberty the
present application is filed seeking regular bail pending trial. I
have considered the deposition of victim, which is placed on
record and having gone through the same it is found out that
the prosecution has supported the case of the prosecution and
in her deposition she has categorically narrated the entire
incident in detail as to how the applicant has committed
alleged offence as a result of which her life has been ruined
which clearly goes on to show the active involvement of the
applicant in the commission of the crime. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that no leniency can be shown upon
applicant who is involved in such a serious offence. Over and
above that has submitted by learned APP, the trial has
proceeded further and out of 22 witnesses, 7 witnesses have
already been examined therefore, the trial would conclude
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
within a short time. Accordingly, the present application is
rejected.
10. 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;
11. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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."
12. 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 in connivance with other co-accused. Therefore on
merit also, the applicant has no case.
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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 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."
14. Over and above that, strong apprehension has been
shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6539/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and
fleeing away from the trial. Over and above that, the trial
has proceeded further and few witnesses are yet to be
examined and within no time, the witnesses would be
examined and the trial would be concluded.
15. 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.
16. 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.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
PD
