[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gorav @ Raghu Rajeshbhai Chotaliya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 651 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4354 of 2026
==========================================================
GORAV @ RAGHU RAJESHBHAI CHOTALIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN BHARDA with MR KISHAN DAIYA for the Applicant No.1
MR LB DABHI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 20/02/2026
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate
Mr.Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Mr.Kishan Daiya
appearing on behalf of the applicants, 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 applicants have filed these applications under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR
being C.R. No.11822006250670 of 2025 registered with
Bilimora Police Station, Navsari for the offence punishable
under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(1)(2), 351(2)(3), 352, 54 of
B.N.S. Act, under Section 135 of G.P.Act, and under Sections
3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4) of the GUJCTOC Act, 2015.
4. Learned advocates for the applicants would submit that
considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature of
the allegation levelled, the applicants may be enlarged on
regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet
is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
applicants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended
that the applicants are 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 applicants as coming out from the charge-sheet, this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the
applicants and the applications may be dismissed.
6. It would appear that originally and FIR being under
Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(1)(2), 351(2)(3), 352, 54 of B.N.S.
Act, had been registered with Bilimora Police Station, District:
Navsari and whereas a report for addition of offences
punishable under GUJCTOC Act came to be filed by the
investigating officer, an officer of the rank of Police Inspector
and whereas the same having been accepted, and the present
applicants, being considered to be members of the Organized
Crime Syndicate and having been arrested in connection with
the addition, the applicants have approached this Court, more
particularly their applications for regular bail having been
rejected by the learned Sessions Court.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
aspects are considered:-
i. While the report of addition of offence punishable under
GUJCTOC Act, 2015 is inter alia names as an Organized
Crime Syndicate by the name of one Tisri Gali Gang' yet,
the entire report is silent as regards the organized criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
activity of the syndicate in question.
ii. Prima facie, it would appear to this Court that for
alleging an offence under the GUJCTOC, more particularly,
when investigating officer is alleging that there is an
organized crime syndicate, which is indulging in criminal
activity, then, an allegation, which should be co-relatable
with FIRs, as regards the criminal activity which is the
principle activity of the syndicate has to be mentioned, in
the report/FIR and whereas mere recounting of offences in
FIR filed against the members of the allied syndicate may
not meet with the threshold requirement of GUJCTOC.
iii. It required to be mentioned at this stage that for alleging
an offence under GUJCTOC, more particularly, when the
allegation is that the accused are alleged to be part of an
'organized crime syndicate' then the FIR/report and/or the
charge-sheet in particular should state clearly as regards the
continuing unlawful activity which is being undertaken by
the accused for or on behalf of the syndicate. In the
instance case except for stating the number of the FIRs
along with details as regards the alleged offence being
committed along with other syndicate members or alone,
there is no specific averment as regards the offences being
part of or in furtherance of the continuing unlawful activity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
iv. To this Court it would appear that considering the report
that while the applicants and other members of the so
called gang may be accused in various offences including
serious offences of murder, dacoity, kidnapping, rape etc,
yet, that by itself would not be enough to draw an
inference that the accused are part of an organized crime
syndicate unless there is a common thread which is shown
to be running between the crimes that is for the purpose of
any furtherance of the criminal activity of the gang in
question, which is conspicuous by its absence in the report,
and report for addition of offences under GUJCTOC, may
not be prima facie maintainable.
v. As far as, the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application
No.651 of 2026 is concerned, it is alleged that the said
applicant has committed six offences in furtherance of
being a member of the organized crime syndicate and
whereas it would appear that three of the offences are of
the year 2017-2018. Therefore they may not be relevant
since being before the Act itself came into force, of which
in one, applicant has been acquitted. It also appears that of
the remaining offences, in two offences, the applicant is not
stated to have committed the offences as part of the
syndicate, there being no specific remarks as far as the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
aspect is concerned in the charge-sheet which has been filed
by the investigating officer. Thus, it would appear that there
is only one FIR which is of the year 2023, where the
applicant is stated to be an accused having committed the
crime with another co-accused in furtherance of the activity
of the organized crime syndicate.
vi. As far as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application
No.4354 of 2026 is concerned, he is stated to have
committed six offences, of which three are of the year 2017-
2018. Therefore, they may not be relevant since being
before the Act itself came into force, and whereas, of the
remaining three, the said applicant is stated to have
committed the same in furtherance of the organized criminal
activity and with members of the organized crime syndicate.
It also appears that in both cases, the last offence, was of
the year 2023-2024 that is, there is no offence in near
proximity as committed by the applicants.
vii. This Court has also considered that in all of the
offences that is the substantial offences, the applicants have
been released on regular bail.
viii. Considering the above, more particularly having
regard to the fact that the applicants are in custody since
01.08.2025 (Cr.Ma No.651 of 2025) and 31.07.2025 (Cr.Ma
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
No.4354 fo 2026) and whereas since it prima facie appears
to this Court that the report, not indicating any activity of
the organized crime syndicate, which would reflect that
there exists a syndicate at all, to this Court, at this stage,
interference is required.
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.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
applicants in the First Information Report, 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
applicants on regular bail.
9. Hence, the present applications are allowed. The
applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection
with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11822006250670 of 2025
registered with Bilimora Police Station, Navsari, on executing
a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
Court and subject to the conditions that they 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 in a month for a period of one year
before the concerned police station.
10. The Authorities will release the applicants only if they
are 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.
11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/651/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
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.
12. 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 applications of the applicants for being released
on regular bail.
13. The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NAIR SMITA V./18-SB-I & 23-DB
