After 4½ Years in Jail, Gujarat HC Denies Bail to Accused in Double-Murder Case, Citing Advanced Trial and Prima Facie Involvement

The applicant sought successive regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered at Kamlabaugh Police Station, Porbandar.

Arrested on 26 January 2022, he had remained in custody after the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

His earlier bail application had been withdrawn with liberty to renew it if the trial was not concluded by 31 March 2025.

The applicant relied on his more than four-and-a-half years’ incarceration, the examination of only 38 of 99 prosecution witnesses, and alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account; he also invoked parity with co-accused who had been released on bail.

The complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences, witness-protection concerns, and alleged delay tactics by the accused. The State also opposed bail.

The trial court had reported that the trial could be concluded within 12 months.

1. Whether the circumstances since the earlier bail application had changed substantially enough to permit reconsideration of the applicant’s successive bail request

2. Whether the applicant’s period of incarceration and the time remaining for trial, considered alongside the alleged offences, the trial’s progress, and the reported witness-related concerns, warranted release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the regular-bail application.

Under State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, State of M.P. v. Kajad, State of Tamil Nadu v. S.A. Raja, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, successive bail applications may be considered where there is a substantial change in circumstances; a court considering a subsequent application must address the grounds for the earlier decision and identify the fresh grounds for reconsideration.

The court also relied on authorities including Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar for the principle that incarceration and anticipated delay do not, by themselves, compel bail where the alleged offence is grave; delay and the right to a speedy trial remain relevant considerations, assessed in the circumstances of the case.

It further cited X v. State of Rajasthan for the view that, once trial has commenced, bail on the basis of trial evidence requires particular caution, while undue delay not attributable to the accused may justify release.

The court considered the applicant’s continued custody and the trial’s progress, but found that the prosecution had examined 38 of 99 witnesses and that the trial court expected to conclude the trial within 12 months.

It also noted the seriousness of the charges, the alleged deaths and injuries, the complainant’s account and supporting medical material, and the complainant’s police protection.

In light of those circumstances, the court held that the period of incarceration and the fact that the trial remained ongoing did not justify bail at that stage; it was also not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant despite the successive application and the asserted grounds for reconsideration.

It directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within the stipulated time, without being influenced by the observations made in the bail judgment.