SURJITSINH @ SANDIPSINH AMARSINH MANGROLAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/19829/2021                              ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




              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


                                   Page 1 of 7
        R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




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



                                      Page 2 of 7
R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




   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


                                Page 3 of 7
R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                     ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




          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


                                   Page 4 of 7
R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




          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


                                Page 5 of 7
     R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                   ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




               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

                                      Page 6 of 7
       R/CR.MA/19829/2021                                                            ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




                 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.

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




                                                      Page 7 of 7