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

The applicant was arrested on 9 December 2024 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.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over vehicle parking, the accused persons assaulted the first informant and his father; the applicant allegedly inflicted kicks and fist blows on the deceased after the latter intervened.

The applicant contended that the deceased had died a natural death from a heart attack, that the post-mortem report disclosed no external injuries, and that CCTV footage showed the applicant entering the society after the incident had concluded.

The prosecution relied upon eyewitness statements and the post-mortem opinion attributing death to shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries from a hard and blunt object.

The applicant’s earlier bail application was dismissed on 26 March 2025. The Supreme Court thereafter granted liberty to renew the bail request after completion of one year. A second application was dismissed on 13 November 2025, inter alia, because the CCTV material relied upon was already part of the chargesheet and had been considered earlier. The present application was therefore the applicant’s third successive bail application.

By the date of hearing, 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined, 14 had been dropped, and 17 remained to be examined.

Whether the applicant, in a third successive application for regular bail, had demonstrated any new or changed circumstance warranting release after dismissal of his earlier bail applications?

Whether the applicant’s contentions regarding the deceased’s alleged natural death and the CCTV footage were sufficient to displace the prosecution case at the bail stage while the trial was in progress?

Whether the progress of the trial and the examination of more than half of the prosecution witnesses justified granting bail?

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

In considering a successive bail application, the Court required a substantial change in circumstances or a fresh ground warranting reconsideration; material already available and previously considered could not ordinarily justify a renewed application.

The Court also relied on the principle that, once a criminal trial has commenced, the court should ordinarily allow it to proceed to conclusion rather than assess witness depositions at the bail stage, particularly where such assessment may affect the pending trial.

Relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, the Court noted that bail during trial may be justified where the trial is unduly delayed and the delay is not attributable to the accused.

The Court further applied the established principle that eyewitness statements cannot be rejected at the bail stage merely because the witnesses are related to or acquainted with the complainant.

The Court found that no fresh circumstance had been established. The CCTV footage relied upon by the applicant formed part of the chargesheet, had been supplied earlier, and had already been considered in the previous bail proceedings.

Although the applicant disputed the homicidal nature of the death and relied on medical evidence and witness depositions, the post-mortem report recorded shock and haemorrhage due to injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, while several eyewitnesses attributed kicks and fist blows to the applicant.

The Court declined to undertake a detailed evaluation of the doctors’ depositions because the trial was underway and such assessment could prejudice the appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

Further, the trial had progressed substantially, with 22 witnesses examined and only 17 remaining; therefore, there was no demonstrated undue delay justifying bail on the ground of speedy trial.

The pending trial and the prosecution’s allegation of threats to the complainant also weighed against interference with the ongoing proceedings.

The medical evidence, CCTV footage, and eyewitness material required evaluation at trial and did not justify release at the bail stage.

Since the trial had substantially progressed and was not shown to be unduly delayed, the Court found no ground to entertain the application and dismissed the application for regular bail.