R/CR.MA/15708/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 15708 of 2025 ========================================================== MADEVABHAI RANCHHODBHAI DHILA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH(3093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule. 2. By way of the present application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11993004240385 of 2024 registered with Bhachau Police Station, Kachchh East Gandhidham. 3. It seems that earlier regular bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.22568 of 2024 filed by the present applicant, came to be withdrawn on 03.12.2024. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the R/CR.MA/15708/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate appearing for the complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicant had previously filed an application for regular bail , came to be withdrawn on 03.12.2024. Since then, there has been no change in circumstances in the case. The trial is in progress, and the prosecution is ready and willing to proceed with the matter on a day-to-day basis. If the applicant is released on bail, the possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence and absconding from the trial cannot be ruled out. Therefore, learned APP submits that the application be dismissed. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 7. Having gone through the papers available on record, it appears that the earlier regular bail application, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 22568 of 2024, filed by the present applicant, came to be withdrawn on 03.12.2024, as the Court was not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the applicant, with liberty to file afresh after examining material witnesses and if the trial had not substantially progressed. However, the trial is now substantially in progress, and the present successive regular bail application has been filed by the applicant without any change in circumstances. Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/15708/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 8. It appears that the present application came to be filed on the same ground and there is no change in circumstances. Once, the matter was withdrawn or dismissed on merit and there is no change in circumstances, present successive application by the appellant on the same ground is not permissible only on a specific ground that a considerable time have been passed or chargesheet has been filed. Even otherwise, there is no bar to entertain successive bail appeal, but the Court has to assign the grounds to entertain the appeal and to exercise the jurisdiction. Here in the instant case, the applicant has failed to make out any case. It is required to be mentioned that the appellant may file successive bail application, but it does not mean that the Court is taken for granted as and when bail application preferred, it should be allowed. Further, there is no change in circumstances. In this regard, reference is made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2017 (5) SCC 406 and Navin Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 (2) SCC (Cri.) 809 as filing of the chargesheet does not any manner lesser the allegation, in which, the Apex Court discussed the scope of successive bail application. Therefore, the onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected. After such consideration, if Court is of the opinion that bail has to be gratned, then Court will have to give specific reason why instead of such earlier rejection, subsequent application for bail should be granted. 9. Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court R/CR.MA/15708/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 observed in paragraph 34 as under: “34. 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.” 10. At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 is also required to be referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized. 11. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 held that, “the accused has right to make successive application for grant of bail, but while entertaining a subsequent bail application, it is the duty of Court to consider the reasons and grounds, which persuade to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application”. Thus, the offence against the applicant is very serious in nature and considering the role and conduct of the applicant, earlier application has also been R/CR.MA/15708/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 withdrawn. 12. Considering the provisions for punishment in the present offence, which provide for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years with fine, and considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. 13. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis, and in the event the applicant fails to engage an advocate, the trial Court shall provide legal aid to the applicant through the office of the Chief Defence Counsel. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/08/2025 15:12:03