R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 13983 of 2026 ========================================================== KARANBHAI MOHANBHAI ATHVALE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR KISHAN K NAYI(13080) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/09/2026 ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. [2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11208044260008 of 2026 registered with Pradumannagar Police Station, Rajkot, for the offences under Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015. [3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence and that the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act have been invoked in the absence of any substantive or triggering offence, straightaway, GUJCTOC proceedings have been invoked. Learned Advocate further submitted that three offences have been taken into consideration, out of which, in one offence, the applicant has already been acquitted. It is submitted that the said offences pertain to the years 2024 and 2025. Prior to 2019, i.e. before the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act, no offence had been registered against the present applicant so as to attract the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act. Learned Advocate submitted that nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and, therefore, requested that the present application be allowed. R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) [4.0] Learned APP vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the present applicant is continuously engaged in illegal activities. It is submitted that, if the present applicant is released on bail, the possibility of tampering with the evidence and indulging in similar activities cannot be ruled out. Learned APP, therefore, requested that the present application be dismissed. [5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. [6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered: (1) investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; (2) Applicant is behind the bar since 11.01.2026; (3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (4) Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) and having gone through the record, it appears that, out of the offences considered for invoking the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act, 21 offences are registered under the Prohibition Act. Prima facie, in the absence of any substantive or triggering offence other than the said offences, the invocation of the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act against the present applicant requires consideration. (5) Prima facie, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution is required to establish the existence of a continuing unlawful activity and the nexus of the accused with an organized crime syndicate. Continuing unlawful activity is one of the essential ingredients for constituting an offence of organized crime under the Act. (6) Herein, in the case on hand, the allegation of involvement of the accused in various offences, without establishing the requisite nexus between the substantive offences and the organized crime syndicate, would not, by itself, be sufficient. (7) Prima facie, the prosecution must demonstrate the nexus between the alleged substantive offences and the organized crime syndicate. (8) Though the applicant is having past antecedent, he is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;. (9) Prosecution has failed to point out the circumstances to continue or prolong his incarceration; (10) It appears that three offences have been taken into consideration, out of which, in one offence, the applicant has already been acquitted. It further appears that the said offences pertain to R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) the years 2024 and 2025. Prior to 2019, i.e. before the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act, no offence had been registered against the present applicant so as to attract the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act. (11) Herein, this Court has considered the provision of Section 20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act and rigors of said section. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294 and State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1727. Since applicant is arrested in November 2025, trial will take its own time. Considering the long period of incarceration and also considering the fact that obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time and therefore, considering the right to speedy justice as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in howsoever serious offence or under the special Act an accused is involved, on the ground of delay in trial, the accused is entitled to be released on bail without further discussing anything on merits, mainly on the ground of delay in trial, present application deserves consideration. (12) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that trials under the special law are unduly delayed and rigors of stringent bail provisions must yield to constitutional promise of liberty though under Section 20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act pari materia provisions are there and stringent conditions while considering bail application is must, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in favor of exercising the discretion in favor of the accused on the ground of delay in trial if same is not attributable to the accused. (13) the Court has to consider the question of liberty of accused. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713. Further, in absence of any justification for prolonged incarceration and delay in trial and in light of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 3798 and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 1920, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that right to speedy trial is essential facet of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to preventive detention prior to adjudication without trial. In light of the above, this Court is of considered view that rigors of section 21 of the GUJCTOC Act stand deleted and hence, without further discussing anything on merits, mainly on the ground of delay in trial, present applications deserve consideration. (14) There is no evidence or material which suggests the commission of, or engagement in, any unlawful activity; [7.2] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. [8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prim21593a 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 FIR being C.R. No. 11208044260008 of 2026 registered with Pradumannagar Police Station, Rajkot, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/she shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark his presence before the concerned Police Station once every 15 days for till filing of the charge-sheet, between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court; (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant. (h) Not to contact or try to contact directly or indirectly the complainant/victim/witnesses connected with the offence. [9.0] 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 R/CR.MA/13983/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2026 (GJHC240449892026) above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. [10.0] 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. [11.0] 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. [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [13.0] It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are prima facie and tentative in nature, made solely for the purpose of considering the present bail application. The same shall not prejudice the case of either side at the stage of trial, and the learned Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) KUMAR ALOK Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ALOK KUMAR(HC01091), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/09/2026 18:21:34