'No New Ground': Gujarat HC Rejects Successive Bail Plea Of BSF Officer Accused Of Conspiring To Wage War Against Govt Of India

The Gujarat High Court rejected a successive bail plea moved by a man who was stated to be in the Border Security Force after observing that the prosecution had alleged his active involvement in a "serious offence against the welfare of nation". 

The court further noted that the trial had already begun and there was no fresh ground shown by the petitioner for grant of bail. 

Justice Divyesh A Joshi in his order observed that "strong apprehension" had been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and fleeing away from the trial. It also noted that "the trial has proceeded further and few witnesses are yet to be examined" and within no time the witnesses would be examined and the trial would get concluded. It thereafter said:

"From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as per the prosecution case, the applicant is involved in serious offence against the welfare of nation though he was working in BSF, wherein his active involvement is found out and taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, there being apprehension of the witnesses being influenced as the trial has already begun, severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, after taking due consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the settled case law in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail, that too, in a successive application. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, perusing the records and the law on the issue, there is no fresh and new ground available in the present successive bail application. Therefore, I do not find any substantial change in the circumstance so far as merit of the case is concerned and do not find it a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the present application is rejected". 

The petitioner had filed a successive bail application  after the rejection of his earlier bail application in December 2023, for regular bail in an FIR registered with Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad under IPC Sections 121(a) (Conspiracy to wage, attempt to wage or abetting waging of war against Government of India), 123(Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), 465(forgery), 468(forgery for purpose of cheating), 471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy).

The petitioner said that it is well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. It was urged that considering the facts of the case as also considering the period of incarceration, the petitioner may be granted bail by imposing suitable conditions.

The State said that except arguing delay in trial and the petitioner had failed to show any change in the circumstances and the reasons, which are mentioned in the memo of application, were all available at the earlier point of time when earlier bail application was rejected.

The high court referred to various Supreme Court judgments on maintainability of subsequent bail application and observed that its consideration would depend on the facts as to whether fresh and new grounds have been pleaded and are available or not. 

"It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. It is also a settled position of law that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances  and the changed circumstances must be substantial one which has direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely a cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequences," the court said. 

Rejecting the bail plea the court said that it is expected that the trial court shall proceed with the trial and conclude the same as early as possible

Case title: MOHAMMED SAJJAD MOHAMMED IMTIYAZ Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 62