Progressed Trials Bar Bail Interventions Over Witness Depositions: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has reinforced the judicial restraint required in granting bail once a trial has reached a substantial stage, ruling that courts should not reassess witness depositions to release an accused as it impacts the integrity of the pending proceedings. This decision underscores the principle that except in cases of undue delay, the trial must be allowed to reach its natural conclusion without interlocutory interference by higher courts.

Justice M. R. Mengdey heard the successive regular bail application filed by an applicant accused of multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the GP Act. The court was tasked with determining whether a change in circumstances warranted bail when more than half of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

Key Takeaways

Trial Integrity Preserved

Granting bail by evaluating depositions during an ongoing trial is discouraged as it prematurely influences the final judicial outcome.

Substantial Progress Bar

If a trial has progressed significantly with a large number of witnesses already examined, the court is less likely to entertain successive bail pleas.

Medical Evidence Prima Facie Binding

Observations in post-mortem reports regarding the nature of death (homicidal vs. natural) are treated as prima facie valid at the bail stage, precluding detailed mini-trials on medical facts.

Court Observations on Successive Bail and Trial Progress

The court noted that the applicant's previous bail application had been dismissed and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court, which had only granted liberty to renew the request after a specific date. The Bench observed that since that dismissal, the trial had moved forward considerably, with 22 witnesses already examined and others dropped, indicating no lack of diligence in the prosecution's conduct.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Addressing the applicant's contention that the death was natural and not homicidal, the court refused to conduct a deep dive into the evidence, noting that the P.M. Note indicated injuries caused by a hard and blunt object.

The Court has the following directions:

"The matter is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed."

Ratio

When a criminal trial has commenced and progressed substantially, the High Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary power to grant bail based on an appreciation of evidence or depositions already recorded, as such an exercise interferes with the trial court's mandate to reach a final conclusion. Bail in such instances is only justifiable if the trial is unduly delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused, infringing the right to a speedy trial.

Background

The case arose from F.I.R. No. 11191015240503 of 2024 at Nikol Police Station, involving allegations of a violent scuffle where the deceased intervened to save his son. It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased with a mortar and gave kicks and blows, leading to death by shock and hemorrhage.

The applicant argued that he had been in custody since December 2024 and that CCTV footage showed his demeanor was calm, suggesting no involvement in the assault. He further claimed the P.M. note showed no external injuries, hinting at a natural death by heart attack. However, the State and the complainant’s counsel opposed the plea, citing the decision in X vs. State of Rajasthan and pointing out that the complainant had received threats from the accused even while in custody. The court, aligning with the principles laid down in X vs. State of Rajasthan, found no merit in the application given the advanced stage of the trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20244 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:59941
Case Title: Brijeshkumar Ravindrakumar Shrikrishna Tiwari Versus State Of Gujarat
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Pitamber Abhichandani With Mr. Sohilkhan S Pathan
For the Respondent(s): Mr Dhruv H Chaudhary, Mr Trupesh Kathiriya, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 23997