JUDGMENT :

Alpesh Y. Kogje, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 11210015210066 of 2021 registered with Surat DCB Police Station, Surat for offence under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act (for short "GUJCTOC Act").

2. It is submitted that the applicant is being prosecuted as a member of syndicate headed by co-accused Vipul Gajipara. The basis for such prosecution under the provisions of GUJCTOC Act is only the offence registered with DCB Police Station being I-C.R. No. 11210015210064 of 2021.

2.1. It is submitted that over and above, the applicant is attributed with four individual offences, three of which are under Arms Act while another offence would fall in the realm of business transaction completely unconnected to the alleged organized crime. It is submitted that if all the offences are seen together, there is no element of commonality or participation in the offences which are termed to be organized crime. Moreover, the act attributed to the applicant would not fall in the definition of continuing unlawful activity as there is no link of any act attributed to the applicant to the first offence treated to be the offence of the organized crime of the syndicate till the last offence allegedly committed by the syndicate. It is submitted that to make out the offences under the GUJCTOC Act, it is necessary to bring on record requisite mens-rea connecting the applicant with the crimes committed by the syndicate. In the only offence registered with DCB Police Station, even if the role of the applicant is examined, then also the applicant cannot be treated to be part of the syndicate.

2.2. It is argued that in the charge-sheet filed in such offence committed at the behest of one Vipul Gajipara and Altf Gafur Patel, FIR is registered on the basis of Call Detail Records, however, there is no Call Detail Records of the applicant with syndicate leader namely Vipul Gajipara nor there is any other evidence to connect the applicant with the leader or the syndicate.

2.3. Learned advocate for the applicant has tried to bring to the notice of the Court the proceedings initiated by the co-accused of the constituent offences and orders passed respectively by various Courts protecting such co-accused in the constituent offences. It is submitted that the offence of the DCB being C.R. No. I-C.R. No. 11210015210064 of 2021 is in reality a civil dispute which is given a colour of criminal offence and in such offence also, the main accused has been granted protection to the extent that the Investigating Agency is prevented from fling charge-sheet.

2.4. Learned advocate submitted that to treat the criminal offences of the applicant to be part of organized crime, it is required that the applicant must be involved in more than two offences, wherein charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken in more than two offences. It is submitted that two offences, in case of the applicant, are isolated offences or stand alone offences with no link with the syndicate and therefore, existence of such two offences cannot be treated as an offence to be considered as further requirement of provisions of GUJCTOC Act. Learned advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of Sandip Gupta v/s. State of Gujarat to contend that there is no offence registered against the said accused after the promulgation of the act. It is also submitted that the Court has adopted the test of two charge-sheets being indispensable for attracting the provisions of GUJCTOC Act.

2.5. Thereafter, the learned advocate has taken this Court through the list of offences registered against the applicant. The manner and method in which the offence has been registered and the status of the applicant in such offence to broadly contend t