High Court of Gujarat
JIVANBHAI CHATURBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED
- Bench
- ILESH VORA
Holding
The court denied bail, dismissing the successive bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a successive bail application filed by Jivanbhai Chaturbhai Solanki, accused No.3 in a murder case (Sections 302, 323, 506(2), 294B, 114 IPC and Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act). He had been in custody since his arrest on 1 Oct 2017 and the trial remained pending. The applicant argued that the delay violated his right to a speedy trial, relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. The prosecution highlighted that the accused had absconded for 497 days while on temporary bail and had prior assault cases, creating a risk of flight. The Court observed that the delay was largely self‑inflicted, a prima‑facie case existed, and the trial was at the fag end, and therefore refused to exercise discretion in his favour. The bail application was dismissed and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the prolonged trial and alleged violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.
- Whether the accused's prior absconding and other criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether the stage of the trial (fag end) influences the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Gujarat Police Acts. 135(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 294B, s. 302, s. 323, s. 506(2)
Subjects
bailspeedy trialabscondingmurderIPC sectionsjudicial discretiontrial delay
Judgment
R/CR.MA/21730/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21730 of 2024
==========================================================
JIVANBHAI CHATURBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVIK R SAMANI(8339) for the Applicant
MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. This successive bail application is preferred by the applicant
accused Jivan Chaturbhai Solanki, in connection with I. CR.
No. 245 of 2017 registered with Bapunagar Police Station
for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506(2),
294B, 114 of IPC and Section 135(1) of GP Act.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Bhavik Samani and Mr. J.K.
Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent State.
3. Brief facts leading to file this application are that, 5 accused
including the applicant – original accused no. 3, were
arrested in connection with murder of Kismatsinh Vihol.
The incident occurred on 30.09.2017 at about 10.15 pm in
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/21730/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
the area of Bapunagar at Ahmedabad. According to
prosecution case, due to prior dispute, the deceased
Kismatsinh Vihol was brutally killed by the accused by
stabbing him multiple times. All the accused were armed
with knives and fatal blows on the chest and abdomen being
inflicted on the body of the deceased. The applicant -
accused had been arraigned as accused no. 3 and was
arrested on 01.10.2017 and chargesheet after due
investigation being submitted on 27.12.2017. The case was
committed to the court of sessions at Ahmedabad.
4. The bail application filed before the Sessions Court being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 662 of 2020 came to be
rejected on 10.02.2020. The bail application filed before the
High Court being withdrawn twice i.e. on 20.06.2022 and
05.07.2022 with a direction to the trial Court to proceed
with the matter expeditiously.
5. Mr. Bhavik Samani, learned advocate for the applicant
pressed this application mainly on the ground of delay in
trial proceedings, as since 2017, the applicant is in custody
and till date, trial is not concluded and therefore, while
relying on the judgment of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40, contended that, when the timely trial is
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/21730/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
not possible, the accused cannot be made to suffer further
incarceration and in the present case, there is no fault on the
part of the applicant herein.
6. In such circumstances referred to above, it is prayed that the
case is made out for exercising judicial discretion and the
applicant accused may be enlarged on bail by imposing
appropriate condition.
7. Opposing the bail application, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah, submitted that, the applicant was
absconded from 28.08.2022 to 10.01.2024, when he was
granted temporary bail. The charge is serious and now the
trial is at the fag end and it will be concluded within short
span of time and therefore having regard to the past
antecedents and conduct of the applicant, if bail is granted,
he will not remain present to face the trial and he will flee
from justice.
8. I have gone through the chargesheet case papers and earlier
orders of withdrawal of the bail application passed by this
Court. The applicant – original accused no. 3, as per the
charge, he stabbed the deceased multiple times with knife.
The accused was arrested on 01.10.2017 and chargesheet
against him came to be filed on 27.12.2017. Jail remark
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/21730/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
shows that when the accused was granted temporary bail, he
remained absconded from 28.08.2022 to 10.01.2024 (497
days), which shows that he remained absconded for about
16 to 17 months. The jail remarks further shows that there
were two cases of causing bodily injuries being registered
with Bapunagar Police Station against the applicant herein
for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(B),
506(2) of Indian Penal Code. It emerges from the report of
IO that, out of 39 witnesses, recording of evidence of most
of the witnesses is over.
9. I am conscious about the right of the accused for speedy
trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. In the facts of present case, it was the applicant
accused, who absconded for about 497 days and that was
the reason for delay in trial proceedings. The applicant –
accused is having past antecedents as referred above and
considering his conduct, the apprehension as expressed by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are chances
of accused being fleeing from justice, cannot be ruled out.
In such circumstances, considering the nature of accusation
and severity of punishment in case of punishment and
nature of evidence in support of charge, there is prima-facie
case against the accused and when the trial is at the fag end,
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/21730/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
I am not inclined to exercise judicial discretion in favour of
the applicant. Having regard to the stage of trial and period
of incarceration, it is in the interest of justice to direct the
trial Court to conclude the trial proceedings within 3 months
from the receipt of this order.
10. With this observations and directions, the present
application stands dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/01/2026 14:57:43
Page 5 of 5
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search