R/CR.MA/14761/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 14761 of 2025 ========================================================== MANISH MANVINDERSINGH CHUGH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR HARSHIT S TOLIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARDIKKUMAR D RAO(8174) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 12/09/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. The complainant – party in person is present in the Court. [2.0] The present successive bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210015240073 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120 of the IPC. [3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. In the complaint, accused No. 1 is father and present applicant is accused No. 2, whereas the complainant is a retired Income Tax Officer who invested money under the pretext of business in the companies M/s Aponyx Labs Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Aponyx EV Pvt. Ltd. He invested an amount of Rs. 2.97 crores. It is alleged in the FIR that, while making the said investment, the accused lured him to invest more money and demanded additional funds to set up the E-vehicle plant in Surat. The accused persons said that if he invested more money, he would receive 8% interest along with 20% shareholding in the company. It R/CR.MA/14761/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 appears that the his son assumed the status of the director, and thereafter, he was offered directorship. The accused then lured the complainant and siphoned off the said amount, rather than making any investment, thus misusing the investment made by the complainant. The complainant was duped by the accused persons, who won his trust, and the accused have committed the offence of cheating, with an amount of Rs. 2.97 crores being siphoned. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence suggesting that the applicant received any money from the complainant’s account. He has nothing to do with the offence. Furthermore, the investigation is over, and there is nothing further to be recovered or discovered from the accused. Furthermore, as the charge- sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering with evidence, the advocate for the applicant has requested that the present application be allowed. It is also submitted that, an MOU came to be executed between the parties, but not successfully worked out. Pursuant to the said MOU, cheques were issued. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2024. Offence is triable by JMFC and dispute is civil in nature and given a cloak of criminality. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. [4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Timbaliya, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present application and submitted that, the applicant is a kingpin of the said entire fraud and has adopted same modus operandie in six other offences in collusion with his father and wife. So far parity is concerned, accused No.1 is his father who is senior citizen and accused No.3 is his wife and therefore, their role is different and therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity as the applicant is the kingpin of the said offence. The complainant is a retired income tax officer The complainant invested his entire life savings, which he earned during his career. Furthermore, to make additional investments, he took a loan from the bank, but the amount was not used for its intended business purpose. Instead, it was given to the accused, who, rather than R/CR.MA/14761/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 investing or using the funds for business, used it to purchase jewelry for a luxurious lifestyle. The total amount involved is Rs. 17.40 lakh. The applicant also has similar past criminal antecedents. Considering the aforesaid fact, if he released on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Though accused person is in jail and he used to administer the threat to the complainant. Hence, they have requested to dismiss the present application for successive regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. [5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. [6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered: (1) Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed; (2) Applicant is in jail since 24.08.2024. (3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (4) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty; (5) Case is triable by JMFC Court. R/CR.MA/14761/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 (6) The applicant is having past antecedents, however the accused is governed by presumption of innocence unless and until proved guilty; (7) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time. (8) Co-accused are enlarged by this Court and therefore, on the ground of parity also (Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999), present application deserves consideration. [7.0] 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 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. [8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing further on merit, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210015240073 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one local 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 & R/CR.MA/14761/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not to leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months; (f) furnish the Aadhar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court; (g) if the applicant is found to be indulged in any illegal activities in future, the trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant and cancel the bail granted to the applicant. [9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is 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. [10.0] 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. [11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/09/2025 17:56:55