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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6691 of 2024 ==========================================================

DHARMESH @ DHAMO JAYANTIBHAI MANDLI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ARJUNDEV ZALA(10205) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 11/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Captioned application is filed with a request to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with C.R. No.I/125/2019 lodged with Botad Polie Station for the offences under sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

2. Captioned successive bail application was preferred on 21.03.2024 and thereafter on 19.04.2024, a request was made on behalf of the applicant seeking an adjournment and the matter was thereafter adjourned. The orders passed and the order-sheets suggest that Mr Arjundev Zala, learned advocate for the applicant has not remained present on any of the occasions. It is also pertinent to note that the matter was listed before the special bench which was constituted on Fridays. For the sake of convenience, the orders are not reproduced hereinbelow except last two orders passed.

ORAL ORDER Dated:30.01.2026 “1. Captioned criminal miscellaneous application is preferred on 21.03.2024 and is registered on 04.04.2024. The order sheets suggest that the learned advocate for the applicant has never remained present. Previously also, this Court, has passed the order recording the absence of the learned advocate for the applicant. Today also, twice the Board is called out. Mr Arjundev Zala, learned advocate for the applicant is not present.

2. List the matter on 27.02.2026. ”

ORAL ORDER Dated:27.02.2026 “When the matter is called out, Mr Arjundev Zala, learned advocate for the applicant is not present.

List the matter on 20.03.2026.”

3. From the above it is clear that the learned advocate for the applicant has not remained present all throughout. This Court had also required learned Additional Public Prosecutor to find out the status of the trial and on 16.01.2026, it is informed that the final arguments are over and the judgment is awaited.

4. It is well settled that the successive bail application may be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the applicant which would entitle him for bail in successive application. It is well settled that Court is not to pass order merely because there are some cosmetic changes between the time gap of two applications and that there has to be a drastic change which would entitle the accused for bail. In view of the above, so as to determine the present application, this Court needs to examine as to whether the applicant has pointed out any fresh and/or substantial change in the circumstances and not the cosmetic change for entertaining the captioned application.

5. Bare perusal of the averments made in the application suggest that the applicant has merely reiterated and reemphasized the merits except indicating the evidence of the complainant – Exh.40 and has failed to point out substantial change in the circumstances. Though it is claimed that there is a change of the circumstances and the applicant deserves the bail; however, the said statement is vauge and is stated to be rejected. Besides, now the trial is concluded and the judgment is awaited as informed to this Court.

6. Hence, in the absence of any substantial change pointed out in the application this Court does not deem it proper to exercise the discretion for grant of the successive bail application. Accordingly, the captioned application is rejected.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

RAVI P. PATEL