Reserved On : 25/02/2026 Pronounced On : 03/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2502 of 2026 (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No - √

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

JUNEDALI S/O VAQARALI @ VIKARAALI IMADADALI SAIYAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT =======================================================

Appearance:

MR IH SYED, Sr. Adv. with MR. AMAAN SYED(14385) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NEERAJ SHARMA 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 withdrawal of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.8432/2025 by an order dated 01.07.2025, is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR lodged against him.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Amaan Syed for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Neeraj Sharma for the respondent – State of Gujarat.

3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Syed submitted that this is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court while passing an order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.8432/2025. He submitted that FIR is dated 03.05.2023 and the applicant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 05.05.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody i.e. he is in jail since last more than 2½ years and till date, there is no progress in trial, 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 Senior Counsel submitted that at the time of submission of the chargesheet, the prosecution has put reliance upon 49 witnesses, out of which, few of them have been examined, therefore, it would take considerable long time to conclude the trial, therefore for indefinite period, the applicant may not be kept behind the bar. He further submitted that even otherwise also, on merit, the applicant is having good case but as this is a successive bail application, he is not touching the merits of the case.

5. Learned Senior Counsel, at this stage, submitted that in numerous case laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the period of incarceration spent by the accused concerned and released them on bail imposing suitable conditions. Referring to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those decisions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. It is submitted that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that it is well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. It is, therefore, urged that considering the facts of the case as also considering the period of incarceration, the applicant may be granted bail by imposing suitable conditions.

6. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Sharma has objected the grant of present application looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint as well as papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP submitted that the present application is a successive bail application after the withdrawal of earlier bail application. He submitted that it is true that liberty was granted by this Court to file fresh application after a period of six months but considering the role attributed to the present applicant at the time of commission of crime, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. He f