IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4447 of 2026 ==========================================================

YOGESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 K M JADEJA(7521) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 02/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Ichhapore Police Station, District: Surat, has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), praying for anticipatory bail. The FIR in question came to be registered as I-C.R. No. I-59 of 2014 registered with Ichhapore Police Station, District: Surat, for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

2. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the applicant and Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the Respondent - State.

3. At the outset, the applicant had preferred Cr.M.A. (for anticipatory bail) No.821 of 2026 which was withdrawn by his learned advocate on 15.01.2026. There after, the present successive anticipatory bail application has been filed without assigning any change of circumstances. It is also pertinent to observe that before preferring the present application, the applicant has not preferred any successive anticipatory bail application before the concerned Sessions Court. Learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case of Gurjant Singh Vs. State of Punjab delivered in CRM-M-44419-2025 The said High Court in para-6 has observed thus, "6. The present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.07.2025. The instant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on 12.08.2025. No fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well."

4. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana thought it fit to decide the subsequent anticipatory bail application on merits since the previous application was withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, however, such observation shall not be binding upon this Court, as the same would be subjective satisfaction of that Court.

5. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. reported in (2021) 16 SCC 725, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus, "As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and