An organized crime syndicate can be established without individual charge-sheets if multiple charge-sheets exist against the group within ten years, validating the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Satapara, for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent – State of Gujarat. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.11203004250201 of 2025 registered at ‘C’ Division Junagadh Police Station, Junagadh, for the offences under Sections 3 (1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the GUJARAT CONTROL OF TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME ACT , 2015 and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3) The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 8 in collusion and connivance with each other and with a common intention, formed an organized crime syndicate under the leadership of Accused No. 1 (the present petitioner). They are alleged to have incited one another and committed serious offences, including murder, attempt to murder, robbery, offences under the Arms Act, causing grievous injuries, and large-scale trafficking of Indian- made foreign liquor in violation of the Prohibition Act. These offences were allegedly committed over the past ten years across various districts, including Junagadh, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Rajkot Rural, Jamnagar, Devbhumi Dwarka, Morbi, and Gandhinagar. Further, it is alleged that the accused committed economic offences by earning substantial financial gains through the instigation and facilitation of the aforementioned crimes. Accused No. 9 is alleged to have supported and abetted the illegal activities by managing the financial transactions of the illegal liquor trade, despite being aware that his father who is accused No. 1 and the leader of the syndicate, was absconding in connection with the said offences. Accused No. 9 (son of the petitioner) is further alleged to have actively participated in the continuation of the illegal liquor business by maintaining financial records, encouraging others to engage in the illicit trade, and knowingly assisting the organized crime syndicate led by his father. He is accused of providing all necessary facilities to sustain the unlawful operations of the gang and contributing to the perpetuation of its criminal activities.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the offence and he is a reputed builder in Junagadh District. He has also submitted that due to political rivalry, he has been falsely impleaded in the alleged offence. When the petitioner was detained in judicial custody, he has levelled allegations against Superintendent of Police and filed a complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case No.186/2024 before Magistrate Court, wherein, statement of the petitioner has been recorded by the Court. Keeping the said grudge, complaint has been filed against the petitioner. He has further submitted that, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused merely based on the statement of co-accused; that in a complaint, it is shown that 57 offences have been registered and out of them, the petitioner has been acquitted from 19 offences. However, the police has not considered the same and arraigned as an accused only with an oblique motive. Alleged offences are registered between 2019 to 2024, at that time, the petitioner was behind bar for more than 2 years and 3 months. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence which s