ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Altafhusen Dudhwala appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196002250151 of 2025 registered with Bapod Police Station, Vadodara City for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(0 and 3(5) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Allegation against the applicant of being involved in part of an organized crime and whereas the FIR being filed under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act.

ii. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Soni that the applicant had approached this Court herein before by preferring Cr.Ma No.22144 of 2025 and whereas vide order dated 19.01.2026, this Court had permitted the applicant to withdraw at that stage.

iii. Learned advocate would point out that thereafter, vide order dated 12.02.2026, this Court has considered the co-accused, who had similar number of antecedents and whereas, it is also submitted that taking a clue from the said order, the learned Sessions Court has released co-accused having similar/higher number of antecedents.

iv. For the purpose of GUJCTOC, the present FIR under the GUJCTOC, while the total of 15 FIRs have been considered against the present applicant yet, considering the report it would appear that of the 15 FIRs, in 7 of the offences, the present applicant is the sole accused and whereas, the applicant is stated to have committed only three offences as Member of the Organized Crime Syndicate.

v. It is also pointed out that the present applicant has been acquitted in five of the offences and whereas, in all the FIRs, the present applicant has been released on regular bail.

vi. Considering such a situation and also having regard to the fact that the applicant is in custody since 07.03.2025 and the co-accused having similar antecedents having been considered vide order dated 12.02.2026 in Cr.Ma No.3511 of 2025 and vide order dated 30.03.2026 in Cr.Ma. No.6918 of 2026, the charge-sheet having been laid, this Court is inclined to consider this application, yet, with appropriate safeguards as requested by learned APP.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, 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