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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7090 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

SANTOSHBEN W/O NAVINBHAI AMRATLAL SOLANKI D/O PRAHALADBHAI HIRALAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS CHINTANIKA P LUKHI(10189) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 RAVI V DESAI(8443) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 SHREY H DAVE(8444) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 10/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. 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. PART-A-11191038240585 of 2024 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 54, 238(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shreya Dave appearing for the applicant. She submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 15.11.2024 and since then, she is in custody. The trial of the offence is underway and several witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. None of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. The doctor, who had carried out the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased, has also deposed before the learned Trial Court. He in his deposition has stated that no injury was found on the neck of the deceased. In his cross- examination, the doctor has stated that from the appearance of the dead body, it was difficult to indicate the cause of death. Thus, from the deposition of the doctor, the death of the deceased having been caused by asphyxia appears to be doubtful. She further submitted that the incident alleged in the FIR was not premeditated and it was the deceased who had come to the present applicant quarreling and because of the same, the incident had taken place. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to kill the deceased. She therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the applicant had initially pushed the deceased and after he fell down due to the push, the applicant had strangulated him with her dupatta. Thus, there is an active participation on the part of the present applicant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.12962 of 2025 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court wide order dated 07.07.2025 since this Court was not inclined to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant. Thereafter, the present successive application has been filed by the applicant and it is contended that after the withdrawal of the earlier application, the trial has progressed and the witnesses examined by prosecution have not supported its case. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has cited the deposition more particularly the cross-examination of the doctor who had performed the post-mortem over the dead body and has tried to convince this Court that the factum of the death of the deceased by strangulation/asphyxia is doubtful. This is not the stage for this Court to appreciate the evidence at the stage when the trial of the offence is in progress. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in case of X versus state of Rajasthan reported in 2024 INSC 909, had directed that the courts should not appreciate the evidence when the trial is pending. Except this, the learned a