Supreme Court Grants Bail: Analyzing GCTOC Act & Organized Crime in Gujarat (4 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 496

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can an accused person be denied bail simply because they are charged under a stringent law like the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GCTOC Act)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while considering bail applications in two separate cases. The core issue revolved around whether the accused individuals’ prior criminal records and the allegations against them justified continued detention during trial. The bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered two separate judgments on the same day, with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah authoring both.

Case Background

The cases involve two separate appeals against the High Court of Gujarat’s decisions to deny bail to the appellants. Both cases stem from the same FIR, Cr No.I-11202008202186, registered at the “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar. The FIR alleges offences under the GCTOC Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The core allegation is that a crime syndicate was operating in Jamnagar, involved in extortion, land grabbing, and other illegal activities.

Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Case: Atulbhai, the appellant, was accused No. 4. The allegations against him included intimidating and threatening a victim to cancel a land deal or pay ₹1,00,00,000. It was also alleged that he collected extortion money and passed on information to the crime syndicate. The FIR stated that 59 cases were registered against the main accused, Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel).

Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi Case: Mukeshbhai, the appellant, was accused No. 8. He was associated with Shivdhara Buildcon. The allegation against him was that he offered a property to settle a debt. When the offer was refused, he allegedly involved the main accused to pressure the victim. It was alleged that he extorted 50,000 square feet of land from various individuals.

Timeline

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellant (Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi):

• The counsel for Atulbhai argued that the sections under which the FIR was lodged did not indicate his involvement in any organized crime.
• It was submitted that the FIR allegations of arranging a telephonic talk and sending people to fire bullets were false.
• The counsel cited the judgment in State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727, which reiterated the principle from State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272, that an offense of “organized crime” requires at least one incident of continuation and more than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years.
• It was argued that since the last case against the appellant was registered before the GCTOC Act came into force, the Act was not applicable.
• The counsel also argued for bail on the ground of parity, as six co-accused were already on bail.

Submissions by the Appellant (Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi):

• The counsel for Mukeshbhai argued that the High Court erroneously relied on a 2014 FIR that was quashed by the High Court.
• It was contended that the 2014 FIR was of a personal nature and did not involve organized crime.
• The counsel cited 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, arguing that the requirements for “organized crime” under the GCTOC Act were not met.
• The counsel also referred to Mohammed Iliyas Mohammed Bilal Kapadiya v State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 713, where bail was granted due to only one charge sheet being filed.

Submissions of the Respondent-State:

• The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that Atulbhai was well-acquainted with the main accused and was involved in the Patel Reservation Movement riots.
• The ASG contended that Atulbhai was trying to pressurize authorities and threatened witnesses.
• It was submitted that Atulbhai facilitated meetings and was involved in extortion.
• The ASG stated that Mukeshbhai was in close contact with the main accused and supplied information for extortion.
• The State argued that the mobile phone seized from Mukeshbhai revealed his contact with the organized crime syndicate.
• The State argued that bail should be considered only after the examination of protected witnesses.

Summary of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the appellants should be granted bail considering the allegations against them and the applicability of the GCTOC Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 – Supreme Court of India: Explained the concept of “judicial discretion” in the context of bail.
• Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 – Supreme Court of India: Stated that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications.
• Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 – Supreme Court of India: Observed that the scope for appreciation of evidence is limited while considering bail applications.
• State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272 – Supreme Court of India: Stipulated that the offence of “organised crime” requires at least one incident of continuation apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230 – Supreme Court of India: Stated that parity while 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: Reaffirmed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane.
• Mohammed Iliyas Mohammed Bilal Kapadiya v State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 713 – Supreme Court of India: Granted bail where only one charge sheet was filed for activity as a member of an organized crime syndicate.

Legal Provisions:

• Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act)
• Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240* to emphasize that judicial discretion must be guided by law and established principles.
• The Court cited Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559* and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795* to state that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided while deciding bail applications.
• The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272* and State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727* to highlight the requirements for “organized crime” under the GCTOC Act.
• The Court used Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230* to emphasize that parity must focus on the role of the accused.
• The Court cited Mohammed Iliyas Mohammed Bilal Kapadiya v State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 713* to support the grant of bail where only one charge sheet was filed for activity as a member of an organized crime syndicate.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was influenced by several factors. In the case of Atulbhai, the Court emphasized his alleged role in the crime, his prior criminal record, and the seriousness of the allegations. For Mukeshbhai, the Court focused on the fact that there was only one prior case against him, which was quashed, and that he had no prior involvement in organized crime. The Court also considered the length of his detention and the fact that it was his first time being accused of such crimes. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with established principles of law.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was more influenced by the specific facts of each case, such as the prior criminal record, the nature of the allegations, and the length of detention. However, legal precedents and principles of judicial discretion also played a significant role.

Logical Reasoning

Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Case:

Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi Case:

Key Takeaways

• Individualized Assessment: The Supreme Court emphasized that bail decisions must be based on an individualized assessment of each case. The role of the accused, their prior criminal record, and the specific facts of the case are crucial factors.
• Parity Not a Sole Factor: Parity cannot be the sole basis for granting bail. The role and position of the accused in relation to the incident and victims are of utmost importance.
• Judicial Discretion: Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously, guided by law and established principles. It should not be arbitrary or based on personal whims.
• Limited Scope for Evidence Appreciation: While considering bail applications, the court should not engage in a detailed analysis of the evidence. The court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case.
• Applicability of GCTOC Act: The court reiterated the principle that an offense of “organized crime” requires at least one incident of continuation and more than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• Atulbhai: The Court allowed Atulbhai to renew his plea for bail after the statements of the protected witnesses are recorded. The State was given six months to record these statements.
• Mukeshbhai: The Court directed that Mukeshbhai be released on bail on terms and conditions as found appropriate by the learned Trial Court and imposed additional conditions such as reporting to the Investigating Officer every Monday, giving an undertaking with regard to his good behavior, not attempting to influence witnesses or tamper with the record, and surrendering his passport.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that bail decisions must be based on an individualized assessment of each case, considering the role of the accused, their prior criminal record, and the specific facts, and that parity cannot be the sole basis for granting bail. The judgment also reinforces the principle that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with established principles of law. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but rather clarifies and reiterates existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, while deciding on the bail applications of Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi and Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi, emphasized the importance of individualized assessment in bail decisions. The Court rejected Atulbhai’s bail plea due to his alleged role in the crime and prior criminal record, while granting bail to Mukeshbhai, considering his lack of prior involvement in organized crime and the quashing of his previous FIR. The Court reiterated that judicial discretion should be guided by established legal principles. The judgment reinforces the need for a balanced approach in considering bail applications, especially under stringent laws like the GCTOC Act.