Supreme Court clarifies bail conditions under GCTOC Act: Atulbhai Bhanderi vs. State of Gujarat (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 4 May 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10051 of 2022)
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Can an accused be denied bail solely based on allegations of organized crime? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal for bail under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act). The Court emphasized the need for a prima facie case and the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters.

Case Background

The appellant, Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi, was accused in an FIR registered at the “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar, Gujarat, under the GCTOC Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The charges included intimidation, extortion, and involvement in an organized crime syndicate led by Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel). The FIR alleged that the appellant threatened a victim to cancel a land deal or pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000. It was also alleged that the appellant collected extorted money and passed on information to assist the crime syndicate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissed the appellant’s application for bail, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act) read with Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The GCTOC Act deals with organized crime and terrorism. The relevant sections of the IPC pertain to extortion, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR does not indicate his involvement in any organized crime.
• It was submitted that prior to the present case, there were eight other FIRs, seven of which were before 2015 and one in 2019, and that the last case against him was registered on 14.11.2019, before the GCTOC Act came into force in Gujarat (01.12.2019).
• The appellant’s counsel pointed out inconsistencies in the allegations, stating that four witnesses had denied the appellant making a telephonic call to the main accused.
• Reliance was placed on State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727 and State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272, which stipulate that an “organized crime” requires at least one incident of continuation apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years.
• It was argued that out of sixteen accused, six were on bail, and parity should be considered.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the appellant was closely associated with the main accused and was involved in the Patel Reservation Movement riots.
• The State contended that the appellant was trying to pressurize authorities by spreading false news, and when his efforts failed, he threatened witnesses.
• It was submitted that the appellant facilitated meetings for extortion and that his son continued the extortion activities after his arrest.
• The State argued that bail should be considered only after the examination of protected witnesses.
• It was pointed out that five of the six co-accused on bail were on default bail, and only one had secured regular bail.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the Appellant should be granted bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain the concept of “judicial discretion” in the context of bail.
• Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559, Supreme Court of India: This case was referenced to emphasize that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided while deciding bail applications.
• Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that the scope for appreciation of evidence is limited while considering bail.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230, Supreme Court of India: This case was used to clarify that parity in granting bail must focus on the role of the accused.
• State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727, Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the appellant to argue the definition of “organized crime” under the GCTOC Act.
• State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272, Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the appellant to argue the definition of “organized crime” under the GCTOC Act.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act): These sections define organized crime and its penalties.
• Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with extortion, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy.

Authority Usage Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240:* The Court used this authority to explain the concept of judicial discretion, emphasizing that it must be guided by law and not by personal whims.
• Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559:* The Court followed this case to reiterate that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided during bail hearings.
• Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795:* The Court followed this case to highlight that the scope for evidence appreciation is limited while considering bail applications.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230:* This authority was used to emphasize that parity in granting bail must consider the role of the accused, not just superficial similarities.
• State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727:* The Court did not make a finding on the interpretation of this authority, but the appellant had relied on it to argue the definition of “organized crime”.
• State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272:* The Court did not make a finding on the interpretation of this authority, but the appellant had relied on it to argue the definition of “organized crime”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail was primarily influenced by the following:

• The Appellant’s Alleged Role: The Court considered the serious allegations against the appellant, including his involvement in intimidation, extortion, and being part of an organized crime syndicate.
• Statements of Witnesses: The Court noted that it had carefully perused the statements of witnesses, which indicated the appellant’s involvement in the alleged crimes.
• Parity: The Court observed that most of the co-accused were not on regular bail, which influenced its decision.
• Judicial Discretion: The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously, guided by law, and not by personal whims.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s alleged role and witness statements, than by legal considerations alone.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the serious nature of the allegations, the witness statements, and the fact that most co-accused were not on regular bail. It also applied judicial discretion guided by the law.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and concluded that, at this stage, it was not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The Court emphasized that it was exercising its judicial discretion, which must be guided by law. The Court also noted that it had carefully perused the statements of witnesses, which indicated the appellant’s involvement in the alleged crimes. The Court also took into account the fact that most of the co-accused were not on regular bail. The Court clarified that a detailed examination of evidence should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications.

The Court quoted Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 to emphasize that judicial discretion must be exercised in accordance with established principles of law and not based on personal whims. The Court also cited Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795, to highlight that a detailed examination of evidence is not required during bail hearings.

Regarding parity, the Court referred to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230, stating that parity must focus on the role of the accused, not just superficial similarities.

The Court stated, “Had there been no other case against the Appellant and no material, at least prima facie, to indicate his regular participation in any crime, the Court could have considered his prayer, but keeping in view his alleged role, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour, for now.”

The Court also observed, “The fact, that out of the twelve charge-sheeted accused, six co-accused have not been granted bail, five have availed the benefit of default bail and only one is on regular bail, have also persuaded this Court not to interfere.”

The Court further noted, “Insofar as parity is concerned…Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused.”

The Court did not delve into the legal aspects of the applicability of the GCTOC Act, as the appeal was only for bail during the pendency of the trial.

Key Takeaways

• Prima Facie Case: The Court emphasized that a prima facie case indicating the accused’s involvement in the alleged crime is necessary for denying bail.
• Judicial Discretion: Judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously, guided by established legal principles, and not by personal whims.
• Parity Limitations: Parity in granting bail must focus on the role of the accused and their position in relation to the incident, not just superficial similarities with other accused.
• Limited Evidence Review: Courts should avoid detailed examination of evidence during bail hearings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant is at liberty to renew his plea for bail after the statements of the protected witnesses are recorded, for which the State was given six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail cannot be granted if there is a prima facie case against the accused of his involvement in an organized crime, and that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. The judgment reinforces the existing position of law without introducing any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for bail filed by Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi, accused under the GCTOC Act and the IPC. The Court held that the appellant’s alleged role in the organized crime, along with the witness statements, and the fact that most co-accused were not on regular bail, justified the denial of bail at this stage. The Court emphasized the need for a prima facie case and the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, while also clarifying the limitations of parity as a ground for bail.