Manojkumar Ramdin Patel (Kumbhar) vs State Of Gujarat

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.

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:

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.

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