IMPORTANT POINT
Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13783 of 2021, whereby the Appellant’s prayer for release on bail has been dismissed.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

3. The Appellant is accused along with others in FIR Cr No.I-11202008202186 of 2020 registered with the “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “GCTOC Act”) read with Sections 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). The present Appellant is arrayed as accused no.8 in the said FIR.

4. The case was registered on the basis of secret information received that accused no.1 Jaysukh Muljibhai Ranpariay @ Jayesh Patel was operating an organised crime syndicate in the city of Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat, involving, inter alia, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, money-laundering etc.

5. It was revealed that for such purpose, to derive monetary benefits, he threatened land-owners and realtors/developers by intimidating and threatening them with physical injury and threats to their lives. It was also unearthed that various WhatsApp calls were intercepted, revealing the names of other persons, who stand arrayed as co- accused. The Appellant is associated with Shivdhara Buildcon, a construction company involved in several land development projects in Jamnagar. It was alleged by Secret Witness 11 (hereinafter referred to as “SW11”) that in order to pay Rs.16,00,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Crores) debt with regard to J.J. Jasodanath Scheme, the Appellant had offered a property near his office. When SW 11 refused the offer, the very next day, the Appellant involved accused no.1 in order to pressurize SW11. Thereafter, SW11 was threatened and pressurised by the organised crime syndicate to explore the proposal, under which approximately 50,000 square feet, comprising of 26,000 square feet from the appellant’s J.J. Jasodanath Scheme and 24,000 square feet from one Ashvin Virani (PW85) who was running the scheme Jay Hari-3 (Khodal Villa) were to be shown to be returned to SW11. But it is alleged that SW 11 was later on threatened to execute around 18 seperate sale deeds with either creditors of the leader of the organised crime syndicate (accused no.1), or creditors of the Appellant-accused no.8, or persons known to the present Appellant. In effect, it was alleged that the Appellant had extorted 50,000 square feet of land from the afore-described persons.

SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANT:

6. It was submitted that the High Court erroneously relied on the First Information Report filed against the Appellant in the year 2014, despite the factum that it stood quashed by the High Court vide order dated 24.12.2014. Moreover, it was contended that the incident, for which the 2014 FIR was lodged, was of a personal nature and there was no allegation of the Appellant whatsoever being, in any way, concerned with any organised crime syndicate. It was pointed out that no charge-sheet had been filed against him.

7. Learned counsel drew the Court’s attention to State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727, dated 15.12.2022, the relevant being at Paragraphs No. 49, 56 and 57, which affirms State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272, which stipulates that the defence of “organised crime” could be said to have been constituted by at least one incident of continuation apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years.

8. Learned counsel also referred to the decision dated 30.05.2022 passed by thi