AVINASH SHAMLAL GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:8535
                                                              Bail Appln.No.2439/2025
                                             :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                           BAIL APPLICATION NO.2439 OF 2025


            Avinash Shamlal Gupta                           … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra                        … RESPONDENT

                                             .......
            Mr. N.R. Shaikh, Advocate for applicant
            Mr. P.P. Dawalkar, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                             ....…

                                    CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                    DATE      : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026

            PER COURT :



            1.           Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

            learned A.P.P. for the State.


            2.           This is a successive bail application filed by the

            applicant.


            3.           It is a well-established legal principle that a subsequent

            bail plea must be predicated on a substantial change in
                                                      Bail Appln.No.2439/2025
                                    :: 2 ::


circumstances or the emergence of new material facts after the

rejection of the previous application.


4.            When the learned counsel for the applicant is

confronted to demonstrate any such new grounds or change in

circumstances, he failed to provide any fresh material or valid

justification that would warrant a reconsideration of the earlier

decision.


5.            Having heard the learned counsel for applicant and

learned A.P.P. for the State, the applicant is facing a serious charge

of murder which is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with

rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,

and shall also be liable to fine. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors.

[(2004) 7 SCC 528], while laying down the guidelines for grant or

refusal of bail in serious offences has observed as under :


            “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
            very well settled. The court granting bail should
            exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as
            a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail
            a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
            documentation of the merit of the case need not be
            undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
            reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
            granted particularly where the accused is charged of
            having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid
                                                    Bail Appln.No.2439/2025
                                  :: 3 ::


         of such reasons would suffer from non-application of
         mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
         consider among other circumstances, the following
         factors also before granting bail; they are:

               (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
         punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
         supporting evidence.

              (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
         the witness or apprehension of threat to the
         complainant.

         (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of
         the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
         Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)

         12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications
         have been rejected there is a further onus on the court
         to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail
         by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail
         applications have been rejected and after such
         consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has
         to be granted then said court will have to given specific
         reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the
         subsequent application for bail should be granted.”



6.          Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has underscored the

obligation of the Court when an earlier bail application has been

rejected. A significant onus is placed on the Court while deciding

successive bail application/s to justify the grant of bail. The Court

must specifically consider the grounds on which the previous

application was rejected. If, after this consideration, the Court forms

an opinion that bail should be granted, it must record explicit,
                                                Bail Appln.No.2439/2025
                                 :: 4 ::


specific reasons for doing so.


7.          Apart from delay in trial, no other fresh grounds are

raised by the applicant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State

of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751, has held that delay

especially in cases involving serious offences cannot by itself be a

sole ground for bail. In the present case, the trial Court actively

making an endeavour to proceed with the trial and has produced a

status report to that effect.


8.          Therefore,     in   the   absence   of   significant   any

demonstrable change in circumstances, the application lacks merit

and does not warrant further consideration.


9.          Hence, the bail application stands rejected.




                                      (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




fmp/-