Reserved On : 09/04/2025 Pronounced On : 17/04/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 4659 of 2025 (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-

=======================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No – √

=======================================================

MOHAMMED SAJJAD MOHAMMED IMTIYAZ Versus STATE OF GUJARAT =======================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present application, which is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the rejection of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.10666/2023 by an order dated 19.12.2023, is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.7/2023 registered with the Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 121(a), 123, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent – State of Gujarat.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Dagli submitted that this is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the rejection of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.10666/2023 by an order dated 19.12.2023. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7816/2024 and submitted that against the rejection of earlier bail application, the applicant preferred said SLP, however at the time of hearing of said petition, a statement was made on behalf of the State that they intent to examine not more than five more witnesses and endeavour would be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months and on the strength of the said statement, the said SLP was not entertained, however, liberty was reserved to file fresh bail application before this Hon’ble Court if the trial is not concluded within six months. He submitted that in fact, more than six months have been passed but trial has not concluded. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since his arrest i.e. since 25.10.2021, therefore considering the period of incarceration spent by the applicant in jail, the case of the applicant for the grant of bail may be considered.

4. Learned advocate submitted that at the time of submission of the chargesheet, the prosecution has put reliance upon 33 witnesses, out of which, maximum witnesses have been examined and at the time of hearing of the SLP, only 5 witnesses were required to be examined, therefore as stated above, a statement was made on behalf of the State that State intend to examine only five witnesses and the trial would be concluded within six months, however thereafter, the State preferred an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to call two persons as witnesses, which was allowed by the court concerned but still, the State is of the opinion that more than 10 witnesses are to be examined, therefore, trial will take considerable time to conclude. He further submitted that if the details of remaining witnesses are seen, in that event, it is found out that, those witnesses are residing outside the State of Gujarat i.e. Tripura, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir etc. and the concerned court has issued summons upon them, which were duly served, however for the reasons best known, they have chosen not to appear before the court concerned, therefore, the trial is on that stage, where the SLP was not entertained and thus, there is no progress in the trial. In support of the said submission, he has referred to Rojkam of the trial court. He further