Divyesh A. Joshi, J
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.
2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11203070210348/2021 registered with the Visavadar Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 and under Sections 387, 506(2), 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred and the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2021. Learned advocate submitted that FIR has been registered against total 5 accused persons and except the present applicant, all other co-accused have already been considered by this Court as well as by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned advocate submitted that at the time of registration of the FIR against the applicant, the prosecuting agency has put reliance upon 9 offences registered against him, out of those 9 offences, 5 offences have been registered after the promulgation of the provision of the GUJCTOC Act and the applicant is bailed out in those offences. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence and principle of law of parity as also considering the incarceration spent by the applicant in judicial custody, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the chargesheet papers. Learned APP has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2022 and submitted in the said case, it has been specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, ‘it is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate’. Thus, from the aforesaid decision, it is clear that requirement of registration of more than one charge-sheet, as per the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, would be in respect of organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such syndicate. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained.
5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. It is found out from the record that the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and now the investigation is completed and the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2021. It is submitted that after the promulgation of the provision of the GUJCTOC, 5 offences have been registered against the applicant, wherein the applicant is bailed out and identically situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court. I have also considered the punishment prescribed under the law and as stated above, the applicant is in jail since last more than 2 and half years. I have also considered the allegations leveled against the applicant in the FIR. Therefore considering the above factual aspects and incarceration of the applicant, the present application deserves to be allowed.
7. This Court has also 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 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, 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.
9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11203070210348/2021 registered with the Visavadar Police Station, Junagadh on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 injuries 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 Judge concerned;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday 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 and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g] not enter into Saurashtra Region till conclusion of trial;
10. 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 concerned 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.
11. 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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
