Gujarat High Court
Jaypuri @ Jayprakash @ Jay S/O. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 10585 of 2024
==========================================================
JAYPURI @ JAYPRAKASH @ JAY S/O. RAVINDRAPURI GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 13/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular
Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11191011200007/2020 registered with D.C.B Police
Station, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati
for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Krina Calla
for the Respondent - State.
Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on
behalf of the Respondent - State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has
submitted that no offence at all has been
registered against the present Applicant after
the commencement of the Gujarat Control of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
Terrorism and Organized Crime Act 2015 (for short
"GCTOC Act"), and therefore, the Applicant cannot
be said to have committed or continuing with any
such unlawful activity after the commencement of
the GCTOC Act. He therefore submitted to allow
the present Application and enlarge the Applicant
on bail subject to suitable conditions. In
support of his submission, he seeks to rely upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
The State of Gujarat v/s Sandip Omprakash Gupta,
reported in 2022 SCC Online sc 1727.
4. The Application is opposed by learned APP Mr.
Mehta contending inter alia that there are
several other antecedents against the present
Applicant which indicate that the present
Applicant was involved in commission of the
unlawful activities and had continued to commit
the same even after the commencement of the GCTOC
Act. She therefore submitted to dismiss the
present Application.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Upon perusal of the entire record, it appears
that no offence has been registered against the
present Applicant after the commencement of the
GCTOC Act and, as per the case of prosecution,
the present Applicant was in contact with the co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
accused person who, while being on bail was
running an extortion racket on mobile phone, and
therefore, the present Applicant appears to have
been arraigend in the present case. It appears
that the present Applicant has been arrested in
connection with the present offence on 19.1.2020
and since then he is in custody.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment
in case of The State of Gujarat v/s Sandip
Omprakash Guptau (supra) has observed as under:
"(e) As held by this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah
(supra) continuing unlawful activity
evidenced by more than one chargesheets is
one of the ingredients of the offence of
organised crime and the purpose thereof is
to see the antecedents and not to convict,
without proof of other facts which
constitute the ingredients of Section 2(1)
(e) and Section 3, which respectively define
commission of offence of organised crime and
prescribe punishment.
(f) There would have to be some act or
omission which amounts to organised crime
after the Act came into force, in respect of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
which the accused is sought to be tried for
the first time, in the Special Court (i.e.
has not been or is not being tried
elsewhere).
(g) However, we need to clarify something
important. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane (supra) dealt with the situation,
where a person commits no unlawful activity
after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such
circumstances, the person cannot be arrested
under the said Act on account of the
offences committed by him before coming into
force of the said Act, even if, he is
found guilty of the same. However, if the
person continues with the unlawful
activities and is arrested, after the
promulgation of the said Act, then, such
person can be tried for the offence under
the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge
in any unlawful act after the said Act,
then, he is absolved of the prosecution
under the said Act. But, if he continues
with the unlawful activity, it cannot be
said that the State has to wait till, he
commits two acts of which cognizance is
taken by the Court after coming into force.
The same principle would apply, even in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
case of the 2015 Act, with which we are
concerned."
8. Considering these aspects, the Application
deserves consideration. This court has also
considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which
are required to be considered by this court i.e.
prima facie case, availability of Applicant
accused at the time of trial and tampering and
hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant
has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not
likely to flee away.
(c) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported
in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the
parties and perusing the record produced in this
case as well as taking into consideration the
facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity
of accusation, availability of the Applicant
Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role
attributed to the present Applicant accused, the
present Application deserves to be allowed and
accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also
gone through the FIR and police papers and also
the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
Court where the learned Sessions Judge has
disallowed the bail Application at initial stage.
The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released
on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on
executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court, subject to the following
conditions that he shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the fact of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the
evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in
any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete,
correct and present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at
the time of executing the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior permission of
the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the
contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial
Court. In case of change in such numbers inform
in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable
properties whether self acquired or ancestral
with description, location and present value of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10585/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) not leave India without prior permission of
the Trial Court
(g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial
Court within a week. If the Applicant does not
possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that
effect.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial
Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It
would be open for the Trial Court concerned to
give time to furnish the solvency certificate if
prayed for.
11. If breach of any of the above conditions is
committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free
to issue warrant or take appropriate action
according to law. The Authorities will release
the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is
not required in connection with any other offence
for the time being.
12. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall
not be influenced by the prima facie observations
made by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute. Direct service
permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
NABILA
