[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.

[2.0] Present Criminal Misc. Application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11202008260635 of 2026 registered with City A Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offence under Sections 303(2) and 54 of the BNS, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crimes Act, 2015 (for short "GUJCTOC Act").

[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant was arrested on 05.04.2026 and the charge-sheet has been filed. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act have been invoked mechanically and merely on the basis of presumptions, without satisfying the mandatory statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. Learned advocate contended that the object of the GUJCTOC Act is to curb organized crime and organized crime syndicates, and not to invoke its stringent provisions as a preventive measure in the absence of the essential ingredients constituting an offence under the Act. It is submitted that, for invoking the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GUJCTOC), five offences have been considered, out of which one was registered prior to the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act and four were registered subsequently. It is alleged that three of the said offences were committed as a member of the syndicate. There is no material to show that the said offences were committed as a member of, or on behalf of, any organised crime syndicate. Learned advocate further submitted that, initially, sanction under the GUJCTOC Act was not accorded against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Nothing further remains to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. Considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. It is, therefore, prayed that the present application be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the requirements for invoking the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act are not satisfied, particularly as no offence was committed prior to the alleged promulgation of the offence. Learned Advocate therefore requested that the present application be allowed, as the trial is likely to take considerable time.

[4.0] Learned APP further submitted that, having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the statutory rigors of the GUJCTOC Act, no case is made out for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the applicant. It is, therefore, prayed that the present application be dismissed.

[5.0] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the record, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant was arrested on 05.04.2026. For invoking the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GUJCTOC) five offences have been considered, out of which one was registered prior to the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act and four were registered subsequently. It is alleged that three of the said offences were committed as a member of the syndicate. Considering the aforesaid facts and the relevant provisions of the GUJCTOC Act, the case of the present applicant requires consideration. It is alleged that the applicant has been indulging in continuous illegal activities. However, considering the delay in the trial, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the applicability of Section 2(c) of the GUJCTOC Act relating to "continuous unlawful activity" to the present applicant. Considering the ground of delay in the trial, the present application deserves consideration.

[6.0] Whether the present applicant is engaged in "organized crime" or member of the syndicate is a disputed question of the fact. However, while deciding the bail application for the offence under the GUJCTOC Act, Court is supposed to consider the provision of section 20 of the GUJCTOC Act and this Court is of considered view that to invoke the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act, following conditions are required to be fulfilled.

          (i) That such an activity should be prohibited by law for the time being in force;

          (ii) That such an activity is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more;

          (iii) That such an activity is undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;

          (iv) That in respect of such an activity more than one charge- sheet must have been filed before a competent Court; and

          (v) That the charge-sheet must have been filed within a preceding period of ten years; and

          (vi) That the Courts have taken cognizance of such offences.

[7.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[8.0] Herein, this Court has considered the provision of Section 20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act and rigors of said section. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294 and State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1727. Since applicant is arrested in 27.12.2025, trial will take its own time. Considering the long period of incarceration and also considering the fact that obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time and therefore, considering the right to speedy justice as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in howsoever serious offence or under the special Act an accused is involved, on the ground of delay in trial, the accused is entitled to be released on bail without further discussing anything on merits, mainly on the ground of delay in trial, present applications deserve consideration.

          [8.1] Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that trials under the special law are unduly delayed and rigors of stringent bail provisions must yield to constitutional promise of liberty though under Section 20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act and under the special Act like NDPS Act pari materia provisions are there and stringent conditions while considering bail application is must, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in favor of exercising the discretion in favor of the accused on the ground of delay in trial if same is not attributable to the accused.

          [8.2] This Court has to consider the question of liberty of accused. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713. Further, in absence of any justification for prolonged incarceration and delay in trial and in light of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 3798 and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 1920, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that right to speedy trial is essential facet of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to preventive detention prior to adjudication without trial. In light of the above, this Court is of considered view that rigors of section 21 of the GUJCTOC Act stand deleted and hence, without further discussing anything on merits, mainly on the ground of delay in trial, present applications deserve consideration.

          [8.3] Considering the decision rendered in case of Rameshbhai Batubhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 GLR 1150, on the ground of parity, the present application may be allowed.

[9.0] Upshot, this Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present applications deserve consideration.

[10.0] 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. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.11202008260635 of 2026 registered with City A Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent 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 injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

          (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

          (d) not to leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

          (e) mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.;

          (f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;

          (g) if the applicant is found to be indulged in any illegal activities in future, the trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant and cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

[11.0] 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 Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

[12.0] 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.

[13.0] 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.

[14.0] It is clarified that the reasons assigned in the matter are tentative in nature.

[15.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.