Ejaj Farukbhai Baloch vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

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.11208056201233/2020 registered with the Thorala Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of the GUJCTOC Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 01.01.2010 to 18.06.2020, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 19.08.2020 and the applicant has been arrested in connection with the same on 08.10.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that FIR has been lodged against total 11 accused persons, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.10 and at the time of registration of the FIR, fourteen offences have been considered. Learned advocate, under the instructions, submitted that out of total fourteen offences registered against the applicant, in six offences, the applicant has been acquitted by the concerned court and other offences are pending and trial is going on. Learned advocate has put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shivrajbhai Rambhai Vichhiya Vs. state of Gujarat, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1404/2022 and submitted that though in the said case, ten offences were registered against the said accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enlarged the said accused only on the ground of period of incarceration undergone by the said accused. Relying upon the said decision, learned advocate submitted that on the case on hand, the applicant is behind the bars since last more than three years. Learned advocate further submitted that the co-accused, whose names are there in the FIR, have already been considered by this Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence and on the ground of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors., rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2022, and submitted in the said case, it has been specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, ‘it is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate’. Thus, from the aforesaid decision it is clear that requirement of registration of more than one charge-sheet, as per the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, would be in respect of organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such syndicate. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained.

Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. It is found out from the record that the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and now the investigation is completed and the applicant is in jail since 08.10.2020 i.e. since last more than three years and three months. It is an admitted position of fact that fourteen offences have been considered by the authority at the time of registration of the FIR, however as submitted by learned advocate for the applicant, out of those fourteen cases, the applicant has been acquitted by the concerned court in six cases and rest of the cases are pending for trial. Further, similarly situated co-accused, whose names are there in the FIR, have already been considered by this Court as well as by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore considering the above factual aspects as also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, which is more than three years and also on the principle of law of parity, the present application deserves to be allowed.

This Court has also 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 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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 regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11208056201233/2020 registered with the Thorala Police Station, Rajkot on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

[g] not enter into Rajkot district till completion of trial except for marking presence as also for attending court proceedings;

The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.