High Court Declines Successive Bail in Murder Case, Holds No Substantial Change Warranting Release

A single-judge bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi heard a successive regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the accused after a chargesheet was submitted. The petition challenged continued incarceration following an earlier bail application that was withdrawn by the applicant and permitted to be re-filed after six months.

The Court refused the prayer for bail, observing that no fresh and substantial grounds had been made out to revisit its earlier refusal and that the accused remained actively implicated in a serious offence. The bench noted that while delay in trial and the period of incarceration were relevant, those factors did not, on the facts, outweigh the prosecution’s case and apprehension of tampering or flight. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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."

Background The FIR dated 3 May 2023 led to the arrest of the applicant on 5 May 2023; he remained in judicial custody for over two-and-a-half years. The chargesheet relied on 49 witnesses. At the time of hearing the trial had commenced: 17 witnesses were examined and six were dropped, and further witnesses remained to be examined. The applicant had earlier withdrawn Criminal Misc. Application No. 8432 of 2025 and was granted liberty to move afresh after six months. Senior counsel for the applicant primarily relied on the prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, invoking Article 21 and recent Supreme Court authorities that treated custody duration and trial delay as relevant to bail. The State opposed bail on the basis of the gravity of the offence, the applicant’s alleged active role, the stage of trial and risk of tampering with evidence; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s observation that "once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion" and that release would be justified only where trial delay for no fault of the accused infringed the right to a speedy trial. The High Court reviewed precedents including CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav and applied settled principles governing successive bail petitions: such applications were maintainable but required a "substantial change" since the earlier order. Weighing the incarceration argument against the nature of the accusations, stage of trial and possibility of tampering or flight, the Court found no substantial or drastic change in circumstances and found active involvement alleged against the applicant. The application was rejected, notice was discharged, and the High Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. The bench clarified that its observations did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CR.MA/2502/2026 Case Title: JUNEDALI S/O VAQARALI @ VIKARAALI IMADADALI SAIYAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr I.H. Syed, Senior Advocate; Mr Amaan Syed, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr Neeraj Sharma, APP