LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Facts of the case 

  • The appellant is accused of offences punishable under section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crimes Act, 2015 read with Section 384,385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of IPC,1860.
  • The present appeal is preferred by the appellant seeking release of appellant on bail.
  • Appellant is said to be involved in intimidating and threatening victim. Appellant along with main accused are alleged to be running an organised crime for the purpose of extorting money and land grabbing.
  • It is revealed in the enquiry that the appellant was directly involved in collecting the extorted money from the victim

Gujarat Control of Crime and Organised Crimes Act, 2015 was enacted by Gujarat Government to make provisions for countering terrorist acts and control of criminal acts.

Organised Crimes are those crimes which are planned, rational acts and which reflect the efforts of the group in committing the crime. In general, such Crimes are not random or vaguely committed individual crimes.

Contentions of the parties 

  • The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took the ground of parity and submitted before the court that out of sixteen accused, four are absconding. The rest against whom charge sheets are filed, six accused  out of them are on bail.
  • It was contended by the counsel that the sections under which the FIR was lodged, do not indicate his involvement in the organised crime. There is no basis to make the appellant accused in the case.
  • The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant was well acquainted with the main accused and had facilitated the first meeting between the main accused and prime witnesses when the extortion money was paid to them.
  • It was brought into the attention by the counsel that out of sixteen accused who are on bail, only one has got regular bail and the rest are on default bail.

Observation of the Court 

  • Court referred to the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) for deciding the point of parity. Court observed that while deciding the position of parity while granting bail, the role of accused is to be focused.
  • The court observed that due to appellant’s alleged role in the present case, it is not favoured to allow judicial discretion to the appellant.
  • The court did not allow the prayer for enlarging the appellant on bail. 
  • However, court observed that after the competition of recording of the statements of prime witnesses, the appellant can re-file his application for bail
"Loved reading this piece by Shubhaly Srivastav?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  75  Report