##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20768 of 2026 ==========================================================

BHAVESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI VAZA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. ASHISH M MAKAVANA(16361) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 16/09/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This successive application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. C.R. No.11198014260189 of 2026 registered with Datha Police Station, District : Bhavnagar, for offences under Sections

65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no change in the fact situation or in law; and that there are no changes which would require that the earlier view need to be interfered with, but has orally argued that he has filed the present application as he wants an order by the Court though earlier he had withdrawn the application.

3.2 He further submitted that the subsequent grant of anticipatory bail is prayed for on the basis of the grounds that were not urged at the time of first application; and that the applicant has no role whatsoever in commission of offence; and that there is no recovery of muddamal – liquor from the applicant; and that the applicant is neither a receiver nor demanded nor ordered nor purchaser nor possessed muddamal – liquor. On this ground, it was prayed to allow this successive application.

4. Learned APP vehemently opposed the application. It was submitted that the earlier application was withdrawn after a full-fledged hearing when the Court was not inclined to grant relief; and that all the facts / grounds, which are urged by the applicant in this application, were earlier available with the applicant but not stated / agitated at that time and therefore, this application, in second round of litigation, by urging missing submissions / grounds, cannot be agitated by way of a successive application. It is submitted that there is no change in circumstances whatsoever. It was contended that successive bail on missing facts / grounds is not maintainable. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, including the police papers, this Court finds as under :

6.1 The applicant first moved anticipatory bail before the trial Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.109 of 2026, which was rejected on merits on 04.07.2026 after a detailed bipartite hearing. Against the said order, the applicant approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17279 of 2026 under Section 482 of BNSS, where learned advocates Mr.Harsh R. Joshi and Hirendra P. Vala were appearing. On 27.07.2026, this Court passed the following order:

"Learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.

Permission as sought for is granted. The matter is disposed of as withdrawn.”

6.2 Now, the present application has been filed by the applicant through Mr.Ashish M. Makwana, learned advocate.

6.3 Be that as it may. It is settled that though the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to criminal proceedings, the doctrine of judicial discipline in the hierarchical system must be adhered to. A successive bail application cannot be entertained merely on some inconsequential or cosmetic change. It is maintainable only if there is a substantial and material change in the fact situation or in law due to subsequent events.

6.4 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (