Gujarat High Court
Manojkumar Ramdin Patel (Kumbhar) vs State Of Gujarat on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7499 of 2025
==========================================================
MANOJKUMAR RAMDIN PATEL (KUMBHAR)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PANKAJ S CHAUDHARY(3269) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KANVA ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent – State.
1. The present successive bail application is filed under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
regular bail in connection with FIR being I-
C.R.No.11210015210284 of 2021 registered with DCB Police
Station, Surat for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and
120B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat
Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment)
Act.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that considering the nature of the offence, the
applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent –
State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence.
4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties do not press for further reasoned order.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
perusing the material placed on record and taking into
consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations,
gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without
discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion
that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.
6. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) The applicant is behind the bar since 10.1.2022 i.e. for
more than 3 and 1/2 years.
(b) The investigation qua the applicant is complete and the
charge-sheet is filed and thereby, no further custodial
interrogation is required.
(c) That out of total 18 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have
been examined and thereby, there is no likelihood of
concluding the trial in near future.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
(d) Considering the fact that the applicant is in
incarceration since more than 3 and 1/2 years without
there being any fault on his part, at this stage, without
going into further merits of the case and keeping in
mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, more particularly Para.51,
52 and 53, the case of the applicant deserves
consideration. Said observations made in Para.51, 52
and 53 read, thus:
“51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an
application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
v. State of Maharashtra and Another6 wherein the accused
was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the
entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the
cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, Hussainara
Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. The Court
observed thus:
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting
agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground
that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the
Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime.”
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial
courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed
by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240.
We quote:
“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants
reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord
Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]“I observe that in this case bail was refused for
the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed
on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not
to be withheld as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.””
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time,
the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very
well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it
appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to
play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is
a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight
forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge
pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High
Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and
jail is exception.”
7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
[2012] 1 SCC 40.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant
is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with
FIR being I-C.R.No.11210015210284 of 2021 registered
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
with DCB Police Station, Surat on executing a personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a
week;
[d] not leave the India without prior permission of the
concerned trial court;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station
between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a
period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of
execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only if they are
not required in connection with any other offence for the time
being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed,
the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or
take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be
executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the
case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with
law.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7499/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present
order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
Registry to communicate this order to the concerned
Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:19:40 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link