IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5931 of 2026 ==========================================================

AYUSH KETULBHAI PANCHAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

A N KADRI(7990) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 11/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.N.Kadri appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11204041250893/2025 registered with Mahemdavad Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 331(2), 54 of the BNS.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having perused the documents on record including FIR and charge-sheet papers, this Court is not inclined to consider this application for the following reasons:-

i. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the present applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.23957/2025 before this Court after charge-sheet and whereas, vide order dated 19.11.2025, this Court had permitted the applicant to withdraw the application at that stage.

ii. It would be pertinent to mention here that this Court not being inclined, after considering the case on merits, had permitted the said withdrawal.

iii.It would appear that after 19.11.2025, within a period of around three months, the applicant has approached this Court inter alia seeking to be released on regular bail.

iv. This Court notices that neither did the applicant approach the learned Trial Court nor has the applicant produced any other reason which would qualify as a change in circumstance whereby the applicant would be entitled to prefer the successive application, more particularly, within such a short duration from the earlier order.

v. It also appears that the present is not a case where the trial has been unduly delayed which would result in the applicant accused approached this Court for being released on the ground of the trial being delayed.

vi. The applicant having approached three months earlier and this Court having not been inclined and no change of circumstance has been revealed as of now, to this Court, it would appear that the present application is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

7. Considering the same, the present application stands disposed of as rejected. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

Bhoomi