IMPORTANT POINT
The severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, and involvement in criminal activities are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-11208044202185 of 2020 registered with the Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot City of the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(1), 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4) and 4 of the GUJCTOC Act and Sections 447, 386, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120(B) of the IPC.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 12.12.2020 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the first information report came to be filed against total eleven persons wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya further submits that the main accused, namely, Ejaz @ Akbarbhai @ Hukubha Khiyani, having graver role than the present applicant-accused, has already been enlarged on bail by this very Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant-accused is entitled to be released on bail. It is also submitted that at the time of invoking the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act against the applicant-accused, the investigator has put reliance upon total twelve offences which have been mentioned in the charge-sheet papers in a tabular form. It is submitted that the offence at Serial No. 1 was registered in the year 2012 wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 2; the second offence was registered in the year 2015 showing the applicant-accused as accused No. 4; third offence is again in the year 2012 placing the applicant-accused as accused No. 2; fourth offence was registered in the year 2018 wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 1; fifth offence was registered in the year 2012 in which the applicant-accused has not been named; sixth offence was registered in the year 2017 wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 2 and in the offences from serial No. 7 to 12, the name of the applicant-accused is not there in all those offences. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya would submit that in all the aforesaid offence relied upon by the prosecuting agency either they were registered before the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act or the applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has further submitted that subsequently in the affidavit filed by the Investigator at the time of opposing the bail application before the trial court, two more offences have been shown against the applicant-accused registered in the years 2020 and 2021, however, at that time, the applicant-accused was in judicial custody. The aforesaid two offences subsequently relied upon by the investigator has not been mentioned in the chart shown in the charge-sheet papers. It is further submitted that the offences cited by the investigator in the charge-sheet papers wherein the name of the applicant-accused is reflecting, in one offence the FIR has already been quashed by this Court and other offences pertain to family disputes which has been used as a tool to book the present applicant-accused under the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has submitted that another co-accused of the same FIR, namely, Rizwan Ismail Dal has also been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the offences relied upon by the prosecuting agency against him are all before the enactment of the GUJCTOC Act. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Toliya for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regul