RONAKBHAI NATHABHAI VADHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) Mr. K. S. Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the earlier application being Criminal Misc. Application No.12658 of 2020 seeking regular bail was disposed of as withdrawn without observing anything on the merits of the case. He, however, candidly admitted that the matter had been withdrawn after effective hearing. During the course of hearing of said Criminal Misc. Application No.12658 of 2020, over and above the merits of the case, the applicant had also claimed parity with co-accused, Nathabhai Jerambhai Vadher, Original Accused No.13, who had been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.6045 of 2020 dated 30.04.2020. However, one of the relevant factors which weighed with the Coordinate Bench for exercising discretion in favour of Original Accused No.13 was his age, which was reported to be 65 years at that time and therefore, the applicant could not pursue further for seeking the benefit of the principle of parity, during the earlier hearing. Subsequently, another co-accused, Bhupatbhai Nathabhai Vadher, Original Accused No.15, was granted regular bail by another Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.13447 of 2020 dated 23.10.2020.

(3.) Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, took the Court to the allegations made against the applicant in the impugned complaint and submitted that the present application is a successive bail application and that the applicant has not been able to point out any change in circumstances or fact situation, as would require fresh consideration of his bail application. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ashish B. Gandhi , 1993 1 GLH 268 and submitted that once a bail application is disposed of, as having been withdrawn, it would amount to rejection of the application and the subsequent application seeking similar relief of bail, in absence of fresh grounds or change of circumstances, would not be maintainable. The law relating to consideration of a successive application for bail, as laid down in the cases of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Virupakshappa Gouda V. State of Karnataka (supra), is subject to the accused bringing out a case of change in circumstances or fact situation. In the present case, the applicant has failed to show that there is any such change in circumstance or fact situation and hence, the present application deserves to be rejected.