MAJID RAFIKBHAI BHANU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11208044202185 of 2020 registered with the Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot of the offence punishable under Ss. 447, 386, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120B of the IPC and Ss. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 4 of The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (for short "GUJCTOC Act")

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. J.M. Buddhbhatti appearing for the applicant has submitted that the first information report has been registered against the applicant-accused on 3/12/2020 and the applicant-accused came to be arrested on 4/12/2020 and since then he is in jail. It is alleged in the first information report that the so called incident has occurred during the period between 2011 and 2020. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed in the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has also submitted that initially the first information report came to be filed against total eleven persons and the applicant-accused is shown as an accused No.10 in the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has also submitted that looking to the charge-sheet papers, total seven offences have been registered against the applicant-accused and out of those seven offences, two offences have been registered after the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act. Both these offences appear to be personal in nature. It is further submitted that looking to the contents of both these FIRs, the same has not been registered for the offence committed on behalf of the syndicate nor the trial court has taken cognizance of the same. Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has also submitted that there is no allegation in both the aforesaid complaints that the present applicant-accused has committed the said offence as the member of the organized crime syndicate. Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has further submitted that the two offences upon which reliance is being placed by the Investigating Agency which came to be registered after the promulgation of the Act have no connection whatsoever with the Organized Crime Syndicate. Both these offences are standalone offences. There are no offences of the applicant-accused with the syndicate. Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has further submitted that the continuance of unlawful activity means that an activity prohibited by law carried out singly or jointly on behalf of the syndicate. The material consideration is whether the activity is undertaken on behalf of the syndicate or not. It is further submitted that the GUJCTOC Act is aimed to target individuals who are connected and concerned with the organized crime syndicate and not meant for the purpose of individual who commits standalone offences. In short, in order to prosecute a person under the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act, there has to be some activity concerning syndicate after the promulgation of the Act which is missing in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant-accused has not committed any offence after the promulgation of the Act as the member of the syndicate which is punishable for three years imprisonment. It is further submitted that the applicant-accused came to be arrested on the basis of the statement made by the co- accused.

(3.) In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.