THE STATE OF GUJARAT versus SANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 765
765
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
SANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2022)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015:
s.2(1)(c) – Whether an FIR under the 2015 Act is maintainable in
law or can be registered if there is no FIR registered against the
accused after the promulgation of the 2015 Act for any offence
under the IPC or any other statute – Held: The term, ‘organised
crime’ indicates that there has to be an activity prohibited by law
for the time being in force which is a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken as singly or
jointly as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate, in respect of which activity more than one
chargesheets have been filed before a competent court within the
preceding period of ten years and the Court has taken cognizance
of such offence – There would have to be some act or omission
which amounts to organised crime after the 2015 Act came into
force i.e., 01.12.2019 in respect of which, the accused is sought to
be tried for the first time in the special court – For the purpose of
organised crime, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity –
There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two
chargesheets are found to have been lodged in relation to the
offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment during the period
of ten years – It nowhere by itself declares any activity to be an
offence under the said 2015 Act prior to 01.12.2019 – It also does
not convert any activity done prior to 01.12.2019 to be an offence
under the said 2015 Act – It merely considers two chargesheets in
relation to the acts which were already declared as offences under
the law in force to be one of the requisites for the purpose of
identifying continuing unlawful activity and/or for the purpose of
an action under the said 2015 Act – If the person continues with
the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the
said Act, then, such person can be tried for the offence under the
said Act – If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
the said Act, then, he is absolved of the prosecution under the said
Act – If he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said
that the State has to wait till, he commits two acts of which cognizance
is taken by the Court after coming into force – Organised Crime.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A close analysis of the term, ‘organised crime’
would indicate that there has to be an activity prohibited by law
for the time being in force which is a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken as singly
or jointly as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf
of such syndicate, in respect of which activity more than one
chargesheets have been filed before a competent court within
the preceding period of ten years and the Court has taken
cognizance of such offence. [Para 24][782-D-E]
2. The considerations which normally weigh with the Court
in granting bail in non-bailable offences are: (1) the nature and
seriousness of the offences; (2) the character of the evidence;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (4) a
reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being
secured at the trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses
being tampered with; (6) the larger interest of the public or the
State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts
and circumstances of the case. However, if the provisions of the
2015 Act are invoked in a given case, then, in addition to the
aforementioned broad principles, the limitations imposed in the
provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the 2015
Act should not be lost sight of while dealing with application for
grant of bail. [Paras 26 and 27][782-H; 783-A-C]
3. It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause
in the sub-section that the power to grant bail by the High Court
or Court of Sessions is not only subject to the limitations imposed
by Section 439 of the Code but is also subject to the limitations
placed by Section 20(4) of the 2015 Act. Apart from the grant of
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions
are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.