Successive bail is unwarranted after substantial trial progress absent undue delay attributable to the prosecution.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 11191015240503 of 2024 registered at Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2), 296(b), 103(2), 76 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

He was arrested on 9 December 2024 and had remained in custody for more than one year and nine months by the date of the judgment.

The applicant’s earlier bail application, Criminal Misc. Application No. 11397 of 2025, had been dismissed on 2 July 2025, principally on the basis that the deceased had sustained injuries during the assault and that the post-mortem report attributed death to shock and haemorrhage caused by hard and blunt objects.

The Supreme Court subsequently disposed of the applicant’s challenge on 8 October 2025, granting liberty to renew the bail request after 19 May 2026.

At the time of the present application, 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined, 14 had been dropped, and 17 remained to be examined.

The applicant contended that the deceased’s death was natural, possibly due to a heart attack, and that the CCTV footage and post-mortem material did not support the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution and complainant opposed bail, relying on the progress of the trial, eyewitness statements, and alleged threats issued to the complainant while the accused were in custody.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to successive regular bail on the basis of prolonged custody, the alleged weakness of the prosecution evidence, and the progress of the trial after dismissal of his earlier bail application?

2. Whether the applicant could rely on the alleged absence of external injuries and the possibility that the deceased died a natural death to seek bail at the stage when the trial was substantially in progress?

3. Whether release on bail during the ongoing trial would be appropriate in light of the principle that a commenced trial should ordinarily be allowed to reach its conclusion, absent undue delay attributable to the prosecution?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The prosecution case involved offences under the specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

In considering the successive bail application, the Court examined whether there had been a material change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application, including substantial progress in the trial.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan, which held that once a trial has commenced, it should ordinarily be permitted to reach its conclusion; bail should not be granted by assessing deposition evidence in a manner that may affect the pending trial, except where the trial is unduly delayed without fault on the accused’s part.

The Court found that there was a material development since the earlier bail rejection because the trial had progressed substantially: 22 witnesses had been examined, 14 had been dropped, and only 17 remained.

However, this development did not favour release; rather, it supported allowing the trial to proceed to completion.

The Court also rejected, at the bail stage, the applicant’s attempt to characterise the death as natural.

The post-mortem report prima facie indicated a homicidal death, and the Court found no basis to doubt that conclusion at that stage.

The earlier order had recorded that the deceased was allegedly assaulted with a hard and blunt object and that the post-mortem attributed death to shock and haemorrhage caused by such injuries.

In view of the pending examination of prosecution witnesses and the principle in X v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that it would be inappropriate to evaluate the merits of the eyewitness and medical evidence conclusively or to record findings on the nature of death and the applicant’s involvement during the ongoing trial.

The trial had substantially progressed, the post-mortem material prima facie indicated homicidal death, and the disputed issues concerning the medical evidence, CCTV footage, and the applicant’s involvement were matters for determination at trial rather than at the bail stage.

The application was accordingly dismissed.