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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5026 of 2026 ==========================================================

RATANLAL MADHAVLAL TELI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PRAMODKUMAR C GEHLOT(13266) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN SHAH, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 17/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being No.11200010230573 of 2023 registered with the Valsad Town Police Station, Valsad for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 05.04.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. He has also submitted that this is a fourth round of litigation, and the previous bail application was permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the applicant to file fresh application, if the trial does not conclude within a period of six months. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that now more than six months have been passed after the withdrawal of previous application, however, not a single witness has been examined, except those three witnesses who had already been examined even prior to the filing of the previous application, which indicates that the trial is proceeding on a snails pace. He has further submitted that, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, i.e.. for more than two and half years, coupled with the fact that the trial is proceeding on a snails pace, and not a single witness has been examined after the previous withdrawal, keeping the accused behind the bar for such an indefinite period of time, would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction. Moreover, out of 31 witnesses cited to be examined, only three witnesses have been examined so far, and that too, prior to the filing of the previous application. Furthermore, the applicant does not have any past antecedents.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that he has produced the copy of the status of the proceedings before the trial court, and on same being perused, it appears that post withdrawal order dated 17.07.2025, not a single witness has been examined, and except issuing consecutive summonses to the F.S.L. Officer, the trial has not proceeded even by an inch, Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP, upon verification of the record, has fairly conceded that after the previous withdrawal, not a single witness has been examined, and out of total 31 witnesses cited to be examined, only three witnesses have been examined so far, and that too, prior to the filing of the previous bail application. He has further submitted that, however, considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused and the nature of offence, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investiga