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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8295 of 2026 ==========================================================

WASIM S/O. NAJIR MUNIR SAIYED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 16/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with C.R.No. 11200048232421 of 2023 registered with Valsad Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Kishan H. Daiya appears for the applicant submits that the present applicant is a successive bail application, as earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was not entertained by this Court. He further submits that due to change in circumstances, the present application is filed on the ground of delay and period of incarceration spent by the applicant. He further submits that the co-accused who was apprehended along with the present applicant at the time of incident, has already been granted relief by this Court. A copy of the said order is produced on record and therefore, considering the principle of parity, present bail application is required to be allowed subject to appropriate conditions. He further submits that in fact, the applicant was arrested on 11.07.2023 and more than 2 years 9 months have been elapsed, however, the trial has not yet commenced, therefore for indefinite period. Learned advocate, at this stage, has drawn attention towards number decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” and thus, keeping the applicant behind the bar for indefinite period, right of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. He submits that at the time of filing the charge-sheet before the competent Court, Investigating Officer has heavily put reliance upon the evidence of 27 witnesses, but not a single witness has been examined. The record is very bulky and voluminous and it would take considerable long period of time to conclude the proceedings. Considering the above stated factual aspects of the matter, the present bail application is required to be entertained.

4. Present application is strongly objected by learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the respondent – State. He submits that considering the role attributed to the applicant at the time of commission of crime, present application may not be entertained by this Hon’ble Court. However, he has fairly conceded before this Court that the applicant is arrested on 11.07.2023 and even after lapse of this much period, the trial has not been commenced. He further submitted that as the applicant is involved in a serious offence, discretion may not be exercised and on the contrary, direction may be issued to the court concerned to expedite the trial. It is, therefore urged that the present application may not be entertained. He, therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed.

5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. This Court has considered the following aspects: (i) applicant is in jail since 2023.

(ii) investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed;

(