R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 920 of 2025 ========================================================== MANOJKUMAR SURENDRAPAL SHARMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR GAURANG K CHAUHAN(9858) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KAIVAL D PATEL(13892) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the /Respondent(s) No. 3 MR SANDEEP SADAVARTE for the Respondent MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondent ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 12/08/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 21 of the NIA Act, the appellant Manojkumar Surendrapal Sharma seeks regular bail in connection with the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, Section 8(c), 21(c), 25, 27(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 17, 18 and 21 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1957 (‘UA(P)’ Act. 2. The brief facts are that, on specific input, a case was registered by ATS, Gujarat at ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad vide Crime 111-01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 under the provisions of NDPS Act, as referred above, related to the seizure of 4.949 kgs of R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 ‘heroin’, from the possession of accused Aziz Abdul Bhagad at Sodasala village, Gujarat. The second offence on this line came to be registered with S.T.F., SAS Nagar, Punjab and third case on the same line registered with the same police station. The investigation of all three cases being entrusted to the NIA and during the investigation, 25 accused persons came to be arrested. The appellant accused being chargesheeted and he has been arraigned as accused A25. The NIA Court at Ahmedabad, has framed the charges on 12.09.2024 and trial has commenced against all accused. So far as role attributable to present applicant – A25 is concerned, it is alleged that, he was part of the alleged criminal conspiracy and had illegally smuggled and transport the commercial quantity of narcotic drugs from Pakistan, processed and purified in India, following by its distribution in different States. The appellant accused formed an import / export company for the said activities and played pivotal role and the amount of proceed of crime being used in funding the terrorist organization in Kashmir. 3. During the proceedings of the trial, the appellant moved an application under Section 306/307 of the Cr.P.C., praying grant of pardon and allowing him for approver. In view of the ‘no objection’ given by the R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 agency to the said request, the application Exh. 28 came to be allowed vide order dated 29.11.2024 by the Special Court at Ahmedabad. The deposition as approver of the appellant was recorded and has fully supported the prosecution case and disclosed the entire facts and circumstances related to the offence and to every co-accused persons. 4. The appellant herein thereafter filed an application to release him on bail, before the Special Court, Ahmedabad. Vide order dated 19.02.2025, the trial Court did not exercise the discretion on in favour of the appellant and the application came to be rejected. 5. The appellant through jail authority filed this appeal requesting this Court to release him on bail. 6. Notice is duly served upon the NIA and State. 7. Mr. G. K. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial is not expected to complete in near future and continues incarceration of the appellant, who has already been examined and supported the case of the prosecution, would be a violation of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, he may be R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 released on bail. 8. Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned counsel and Mr. Sandeep Sadavarte, on instructions, have stated that the respondents have no objection to the petitioner’s prayer for release, as he has revealed relevant facts and circumstances and disclosed the necessary facts, which is in his knowledge to the case and co-accused and that is why, the agency had given ‘no objection’ to the petitioner’s application for pardon. 9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone to the records. 10. It is settled position of law that an approver can be released under court’s discretion, but normally remains in custody till testimony is over. Once his evidence is recorded, and risk factors are low, the court may grant bail. The Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Premchand Vs. State, (1984) SCC on- line Del 311, has elaborately dealt with the issue on hand and its findings would be beneficial to the adjudication of this application and same are produced as under: “17. The power available under this provision is notwithstanding anything else contained in the Code. Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 In case the High Court is satisfied that an order needs to be made to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers are available, and they are not limited or affected by anything else contained in the Code. We are not oblivious that these powers have not to be ordinarily invoked where specific provisions are contained in the Code or specific prohibitions enacted. However, in cases where the circumstances un-mitigating bring out that a grave injustice is being done, and an abuse of process of court is taking place either as. a result of the acts of the accused or the unavoidable procedural delays in the courts, we are of the firm opinion that the inherent powers should and need to be exercised. The approver's evidence in the present case has already been recorded, and no useful purpose is being served in his detention. The administration of justice is not in any manner likely to be affected by his release. There is no reason to suppose that the machinery of law would not be able to give protection to the petitioner in case any adventurism is sought to be displayed by his confederates, or their supporters. The conduct of the petitioner in seeking his release itself shows that the carries no apprehensions. It would not be, therefore, correct for the court to still create such fears and profess to provide him R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 unsolicited protection by detaining him for indefinite period. Thus in the case of A.L. Mehra (supra) the Punjab High Court released the approver from confinement in exercise of inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of court, finding that he had been in confinement for several months. Similarly the Madras High Court in the case Karuppa Servai (supra) laid emphasis on the detention of an approver till he has deposed at the trial in the Sessions court truly and fully to matters within his knowledge.” 11. In the present case, the learned trial Court while interpreting section 306(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C, held and observed that, for the protection of the accused appellant from the wrath of the co-accused, because he has chosen to expose their deeds and has thrown himself to an attack by the co-accused, thought it fit to reject the application. In our opinion, there is nothing on record any such kind of risk as expressed by the learned trial Court. In the identical matter, the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 20.12.2024 (Cri.M.C. 5213 of 2024) held and observed in para-9 as under: “9. …….Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. provides that every person accepting a tender of pardon, shall, unless he R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of trial. The object of this sub-section is to shield the approver from both the susceptibilities and influences of his confederates, as well as from their wrath. Since the word used is 'shall', if the statute is read literally, it would mean that the approver, if not already released on bail would, in every case, continue to remain incarcerated until the termination of trial. Such a rigid interpretation would lead to situations where the approver would continue to remain incarcerated even when, considering the facts and circumstances of that case, there would be no tangible risk in enlarging him before the termination of the trial. An inflexible interpretation would also lead to an anomaly in as much as if there are two similarly placed co-accused who apply for pardon, and one of them is already enlarged on bail, the one who is out would continue to be free but the one imprisoned would continue to be behind bars, despite both of them helping in the investigation. Determining the necessity of detention of the approver on basis of the facts and circumstances in each case would ensure that the objectives of the provision are met.” 12. The appellant has cooperated with the prosecution and in view of the statement made by the authority R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 that they have ‘no objection’ and having regard to the number of witnesses, the trial is not expected to over in near future and in that view of the matter, the continued incarceration would serve no purpose. Thus, therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we inclined to release the applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the following further conditions : (1) The appellant shall comply with the conditions on which the pardon was tendered to him; (2) Appellant shall appear before the concerned court, as and when directed; (3) The appellant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned court and provide his e-mail ID and cell phone number to the trial Court as well as IO of the case. 13. With the above, present appeal stands allowed. The observations made hereinabove are prima-facie in nature and only for the purpose of disposal of this application. Registry is directed to communicate this R/CR.A/920/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 order to the jail authority for information and necessary compliance. Direct service is permitted. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) P.S. JOSHI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/08/2025 13:22:48