IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 19829 of 2021 ========================================================== SURJITSINH SANDIPSINH AMARSINH MANGROLA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda appearing for original complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B.Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11199050211432 of 2021 registered with Valiya Police Station, Dist.Bharuch for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that no p. 1 useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 6. While the present application has been preferred in the month of November, 2021 praying for grant of regular bail, and whereas learned advocates have made certain arguments on merits more particularly learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate Mr.Bharda for the complainant, yet, in view of circumstances which have taken place in the interregnum, this Court is of the opinion that the present application is not required to be dealt with on its merits, the reason thereof, being as below: (i) it would appear in this regard that the FIR had been lodged before the concerned police station on 04.10.2021 and whereas the present applicant had been arrested on the same date; (ii) it would appear that the applicant had approached the learned Sessions Court and whereas upon the learned Sessions Court rejecting the application preferred by the applicant, the applicant has approached this Court with the present application; (iii) it would appear that present application had been listed before the learned coordinate Bench on 03.11.2021 when rule had been issued p. 2 and whereas the matter had been heard by another coordinate Bench on 23.12.2021 wherein learned coordinate Bench had noted that though learned advocates for both the sides have made substantial submissions yet due to paucity of time matter could not be conducted finally and whereas matter was adjourned to 10.01.2022 and noticing that other accused, have been protected by this Court, learned coordinate Bench had enlarged the applicant on temporary bail till 10.01.2022. The order dated 23.12.2021 is reproduced hereinbefore for benefit. “ [1] Though substantial submissions are made from both the sides and still learned advocate from both the sides desire to make further submissions, however, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be conducted finally and hence, Stand Over to 10.01.2022. [2] Learned advocate for the applicant in the meantime prays for temporary bail in view of the fact that other co-accused persons who are named as accused alongwith the applicant have been protected by an order dated 13.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No.18444 of 2021 and allied matters. [3] Considering the aforesaid and particularly when the investigation which pertains to allegations of the year 2008 to 2020 is now concluded, the court deems it fit to enlarge the applicant on temporary bail till 10.01.2022 on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the jail authority and on usual terms and conditions and on condition that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on 12.01.2022. Direct service is permitted. In the meantime, the applicant will not enter District Bharuch.” (iv) it would appear that the interim bail granted to the present applicant had been extended from time to time, and whereas vide order dated 21.03.2022 learned coordinate Bench of this p. 3 Court had recorded that the learned advocate for the petitioner wanted some time to take instructions as to whether he wants to surrender or not so as to see either matter can be heard finally once the applicant surrenders or the applicant would want reasoned order in respect of preliminary objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor. Paragraphs: 1 and 2 of the said order dated 21.03.2022 are reproduced hereinbefore for benefit. “1. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin submitted that the present applicant is required to surrender first and then only the matter can be heard finally on merits. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Mangukia requested for a day’s time to take instructions from the applicant as to whether he wants to surrender or not so as to see that either matter can be heard finally once he surrenders or he can take instructions from client to get reasoned order in respect of preliminary objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin. 3. Stand over to 22.03.2022. Matter will be taken up at 04:00 p.m.” (v) it would appear that the matter had then been adjourned on two occasions and whereas ultimately, vide order dated 29.03.2022 learned coordinate Bench had rejected the application for direction preferred by the present applicant inter alia requesting that the applicant be deemed to be in the custody of the courts for the purpose of hearing the application for regular bail. (vi) it would appear that the present applicant had thereafter surrendered on 31.03.2022 and whereas, vide order dated 11.05.2025, learned coordinate Bench had adjourned the p. 4 hearing of the present application. (vii) it would appear that the applicant being aggrieved by the said order, had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP No.5269 of 2022 and vide order dated 27.05.2022 the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the applicant to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by JMFC, Valiya. (viii) it would appear that later on, vide order dated 30.09.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court had disposed of the SLP with the direction that the interim order dated 27.5.2022 (referred to hereinabove by the Apex Court) will continue till disposal of present application i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19829 of 2021 pending before this High Court; (ix) it would appear that thereafter matter had been placed before this Court and had been adjourned on number of occasions. Ultimately the matter has been taken up for hearing today and whereas this Court has noticed as hereinabove the fact that the present applicant while he had been arrested on 04.10.2021 had been released on interim bail vide order dated 23.12.2021 and whereas applicant was thereafter, required to surrender for the bail application to be considered and he had surrendered on 29.03.2022 whereafter Hon’ble Apex Court had again directed the applicant to be released on interim bail vide order dated 27.05.2022. As of now, the applicant is out of custody since 3½ years. It would appear that in the interregnum, the Investigating Officer has lead the charge-sheet; (x) to this Court, it would appear that since the present applicant has remained out of custody for substantial long period of more than 3 ½ years, no fruitful purpose would be served by hearing p. 5 the present application at this stage, more particularly it would appear to this Court that the equities could be balanced if the trial Court is directed to finish the trial arising from the present FIR within a stipulated period of time. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 7. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11199050211432 of 2021 registered with Valiya Police Station, Dist.Bharuch , on the terms and conditions as fixed by the learned JMFC, Valiya as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 27/5/2022 and whereas the applicant shall in addition comply with the following 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 State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; [f] mark presence once a week till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter once a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station. [g] the learned trial Court is directed to decide the trial of the criminal case arising from the present FIR as expeditiously as p. 6 possible, but not later than 30.06.2027. 8. 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 Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 9. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 10. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 11. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MISHRA AMIT V. p. 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AMIT VISHNUPRASAD MISHRA(HC00187), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/01/2026 10:53:39