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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 25180 of 2025 ==========================================================

VIHABHAI MOHANBHAI BHALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. SHIVANI J. LAD(17505) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 13/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11193050240190 of 2024 registered with Rajula Police Station, District Amreli for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the G. P. Act.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 12.06.2024 and since then, he is in custody. The petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of more than one year as of now and there is no substantial progress. Out of 56 witnesses; cited by the prosecution only 5 witnesses have been examined by the learned trial Court till date. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence was placed on record connecting the applicant with the present offence. He, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State vehemently submitted that sufficient material connecting the present applicant with the present offence is available on record. It is further submitted that blood stains found on the clothes matched with the blood of the applicant which prima facie connects the applicant with the offence in question. He further submitted that the allegations against the applicant, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents produced on record. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.6183 of 2025, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 17.04.2025. Thereafter, it is reported that the trial has commenced and as many as 5 witnesses have already been examined. The applicant did not remain present before the learned trial Court and the matter had been adjourned on several occasion for the issuance of summons. This Court had called for the report from learned trial Court as regards the status of the trial. The report so submitted indicates that on 11.12.2025 the complainant was present before the Court and was supposed to depose; however, the present applicant had relieved his advocate, who was representing him at the relevant time and had sought time to engage another advocate. So far as the aspect of merits is concerned, it appears from the record that there existed previous enmity between the present applicant and the deceased. The statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation indicates that the said witnesses had seen the present applicant with the deceased. Moreover, it is pointed out by the learned APP that blood stains were found on the clothes of the applicant which according to the prosecution explains the presence of the applicant at the scene of offence.

5. With the aforesaid observations, this Court is not inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J)

NABILA