HAJA LAKHMAN ODEDARA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
Reserved On : 15/10/2026
Pronounced On : 23/10/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 19284 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
HAJA LAKHMAN ODEDARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MITESH AMIN, LD. SR. ADV. WITH MR. JEET V PATEL(8653) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PUNDREEK B ODEDRA(17308) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI


CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11218009220024
of 2022 registered with the Kamlabaugh Police Station,
Porbandar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mitesh Amin assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Jeet Patel and learned advocate Mr.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
Hriday Buch appearing for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant-accused was arrested on 26.01.2022 and since then
he is in jail. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin for the applicant
has also submitted that the investigation has already been
completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned
senior advocate Mr. Amin has further submitted that this is a
second round of litigation, and the earlier bail application filed
by the applicant was permitted to be withdrawn, reserving
liberty in favour of the applicant to file fresh application if the
st
trial would not be concluded till 31 March, 2025. He has also
submitted that now we are in October, 2026, however, still the
trial is going on and out of 99 witnesses cited to be examined,
only 38 witnesses have been examined so far, and as such, it
seems that the trial is likely to take considerable long period of
time to reach to its logical end, and as such, keeping the
applicant-accused behind the bar for such an indefinite period
of time, would be nothing but can be said to be a pre-trial
conviction in view of the fact that he is languishing in jail since
January, 2022, i.e, for more than four and half years. Learned
senior advocate Mr. Amin, therefore, prays that considering the
period of incarceration already spent by the applicant-accused,
he may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and
conditions, which the applicant-accused is ready and willing to
abide.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin has further submitted
that out of the 38 witnesses already examined, most are the
Panch witnesses, and as such, it seems that the trial is not
likely to be concluded anytime in near future as 61 prosecution
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
witnesses are still to be examined. He has also submitted that
despite the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the applicant
by this Court, the applicant-accused has waited for 15 months
and as there is no substantial progress in the trial, has
preferred the present application. Learned senior advocate Mr.
Amin has submitted that while registering the FIR, the role
attributed to the applicant-accused was that he was armed
with revolver/pistol, whereas in his deposition the complainant
has come with altogether a new version and stated that the
applicant-accused was having a sword in his hand. He has
further submitted that the applicant-accused has granted
respite of temporary bail on two occasions, and on both
occasions, he has surrender in time. Moreover, the identically
situated accused persons have already been enlarged on bail
either by this Court or by the Sessions Court, and as such, on
the ground of principle of law of parity, the applicant-accused
is also entitled to be released on bail. Learned senior advocate
Mr. Amin has further submitted that no incriminating evidence
towards the present applicant has been recorded, and merely
the present applicant had relationship with the accused No.5,
Councilor of one of the political parties, the complainant has
given colour of the entire incident to be political rivalry in the
present FIR. Moreover, the applicant-accused is a businessman
having good reputation in the soceity. Under the
circumstances, learned senior advocate Mr. Amin for the
applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on
any suitable terms and conditions.
5. On the other hand, the present application has been
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr. Pundreek B.
Odedra appearing for the original complainant. He has
submitted that the present applicant is a headstrong person
and number of serious offences have been registered against
him. He has further submitted that the involvement of the
present applicant is clearly spelt out from the contents of the
FIR as well as the charge-sheet. He has very actively
participated in the commission of the crime, wherein the
complainant has permanently lost his one eye and two
innocent persons have lost their valuable lives and one another
person has received severe injuries. Learned advocate Mr.
Odedra has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of
the autopsy report and has submitted that the deceased has
received linear cut wound injuries and incised penetrated
puncture (stab) wound, which can be sustained with the sharp
edged weapon, which clearly corroborates with the evidence of
the complainant that the applicant-accused was having sword
in his hand. He has submitted that so far as the defense taken
by the applicant-accused that there are contradictions in the
FIR and the deposition of the complainant, the same might be
a natural corollary as the complainant had also sustained
severe injuries and it might be that at the time of giving FIR,
he was not in a conscious state of mind, and after gaining
consciousness on the second day, narrated true and correct
facts while giving his statement. Learned advocate Mr. Odedra
has also submitted that the co-accused persons who have
already been enlarged on bail are attributed with much lesser
role than that of the present applicant, as they alleged to have
Dhokha in their hands.
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
6. Learned advocate Mr. Odedra has further submitted that,
in fact, the brother of the applicant has jumped the bail while
released on temporary bail and he was arrested by the police
after six to seven months. Moreover, even there is a
substantial progress in the trial since the withdrawal of the
previous application, and out of 99 witnesses, 38 witnesses
th
have already been examined till 6 March, 2025, however,
thereafter, due to non-availability of one or another co-
accused, the trial could not have been proceeded further, and
thereafter, threats were also administered to the complainant
as well as the other witnesses, which constrained the
complainant to seek a police protection from the competent
authority, pursuant to which, round the clock protection has
been provided to the complainant till the conclusion of the
trial. A copy of the said order, granting police protection is also
placed on record. He has further submitted that, thereafter, the
complainant had entered into the witness box, however, the
cross-examination of the complainant continued for almost a
year which is indicative of the fact that by hook or crook, the
accused persons have tried to prolong the trial. Not only that,
applications to transfer the case from one court to another
have also been preferred by the accused persons by casting
aspersions and leveling serious allegations against the
concerned presiding officer, and as such, the cumulative effect
of all such evidences available on record is that all possible
tactics have been adopted by the accused persons to delay the
trial proceedings, and as such, by no stretch of imagination,
delay can be attributed to the court concerned. Learned
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
advocate Mr. Odedra has further submitted that almost three
offences have been registered against the present applicant,
wherein he has adopted the same modus operandi of
administering threats to the witnesses and thereby obtained
the orders of acquittal. Moreover, a report has also been
submitted by the concerned presiding officer pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court, wherein an assurance has been
given that the trial would be concluded within a period of 12
months. He, therefore, prays that the present application be
rejected.
7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State has also opposed grant of regular bail looking to the
nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that out
of the 99 cited witnesses, 38 witnesses have already been
examined. Given that almost half of the prosecution witnesses
have been deposed, the trial is at an advanced stage and is
expected to conclude expeditiously. Learned APP has also
submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant-
accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this
Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-
accused.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
9. It is a well settled principle of law that when the
successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court
would be very conscious while considering the same. As held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain
Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
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 the accused on bail in
successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic
change without there being any substantial or material change
of circumstance. There should be drastic change during the
period between the two applications, which would entitle the
accused for bail.
10. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no
changed circumstances, the successive bail application is
nothing but review of the earlier application which cannot be
maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:
"8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the
rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. case
No. 2052 of 2000 on 5.6.2000 has not been denied by the
respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are
permissible under the changed circumstances. But
without the change in the circumstances the second
application would be deemed to be seeking review of the
earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal
law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v.
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001) 1 SCC 169) and various
other judgments."
11. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"9. When a learned Single Judge of the same Court had
denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that
order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
forum, without there being any major change of
circumstances, another fresh application should not have
been dealt with within a short span of time unless there
were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail.
Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable
to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail
applications without there being any change of
circumstances would lead to bad precedents."
12. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan,
(2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"20. Before concluding, we must note though an accused
has a right to make successive applications for grant of
bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail
applications has a duty to consider the reasons and
grounds on which the earlier bail applications were
rejected. In such cases, the Court also has a duty to
record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to
take a view different from the one taken in the earlier
applications.........."
13. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicate that
successive bail applications are permissible under the changed
circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be
substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier
decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or
no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the
subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking
review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible
under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail
applications, 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 the one taken in the earlier
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
application. There must be change in the fact situation or in
law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or
where the earlier finding has become obsolete.
14. The Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna
Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another,
(2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence
alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that
the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot
entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"16............................ It is true that when the gravity of
the offence alleged is severe, mere period of
incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly
may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail.
Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into
consideration while deciding the question of grant of
bail.” (Emphasis supplied)
15. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar
alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 the Supreme Court has
reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the
mere fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial
should not be the concern of the courts. The relevant portion of
the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that
the High Court has not given any reasoning while
granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court
granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already
in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the
offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for
however long time should not be the concern of the
courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
approach while granting bail in a case which has the
effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity
of the education system in the State of Bihar."
16. In a recent decision in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1486, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
under:-
"21. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the trial is likely to take long time and the
appellant would be incarcerated for indefinite period, is
also not well founded in view of the observations made
by this Court in case of Vijay Madanlal (supra). On the
application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, it has been categorically held therein
that: -
"419. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome
beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of
speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
and which merely specifies the outer limits within which
the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the
accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section
436A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief
under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is
still within the discretion of the Court, unlike the default
bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section
436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required to
consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso
therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the
detention can be continued by the Court even longer
than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be
recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms
and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the
accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious
completion of the trial."
17. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC
528, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu
Yadav and another, has held that three years incarceration
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
would not itself entitle the accused-applicant to be released on
bail nor the fact that the trial is not likelihood to be concluded
in near future would be sufficient for enlarging the accused
applicant on bail considering the gravity of offence.
Paragraph14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is
extracted hereunder:-
"14. We have already noticed from the arguments of
learned counsel for the appellant that the present
accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of
bail which were rejected by the High Court and some
such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It is
seen from the records that when the fifth application for
grant of bail was allowed by the High Court, the same
was challenged before this Court and this Court accepted
the said challenge by allowing the appeal filed by the
Union of India and another and cancelled the bail granted
by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in
Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7-2001 [Rajesh
Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222] . While
cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that
the fact that the present accused was in custody for more
than one year (at that time) and the further fact that
while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had
given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were
not grounds envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the
Code. This Court also in specific terms held that the
condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua
non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code.
In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court
has given the period of incarceration already undergone
by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in
the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the
accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused
stands charged of offences punishable with life
imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our
opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone
certain period of incarceration (three years in this case)
by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged
on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the
offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of
tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the
period he was on bail."
18. 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 , 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.”
19. Thus, when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe,
mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient
ground to enlarge an accused on bail if the facts &
circumstances of the case and interest of the society do not
warrant for enlarging the applicant-accused on bail. The
present is a very serious offence, wherein the applicant
accused has been charge-sheeted for an offence of murder,
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19284/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240626262026)
wherein two innocent persons have lost their lives and other
victim persons have received severe injuries, and therefore,
such kind of offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type
of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind,
inter-alia, the larger interest of public and the State. The nature
and seriousness of an offence and its impact on the society are
always important considerations in such cases.
20. Thus, in view of the above stated authoritative
pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court,
considering the prima facie involvement of the applicant in
commission of the present crime of committing a murder,
merely because of the fact that the applicant is in custody for
the last about more than four and half years, this Court does
not deem it appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage.
Moreover, a perusal of the record reveals that the trial has
progressed to an advanced stage. Out of a total of 99 cited
witnesses, the prosecution has already examined 38 witnesses,
and a report has also been submitted by the concerned
presiding officer that the trial would be concluded within a
period of 12 months.
[
21. In the result, the present application fails and is hereby
rejected. However, the trial court is hereby directed to
expedite the trial, and conclude the same within the stipulated
time limit, without being influenced in any manner by any of
the observations made herein above, as the same are only for
the purpose of considering the present bail application.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:41:51 IST 2026