{"id":267762,"date":"2022-06-02T17:00:51","date_gmt":"2022-06-02T11:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=267762"},"modified":"2022-06-03T10:41:20","modified_gmt":"2022-06-03T05:11:20","slug":"more-than-one-chargesheet-is-necessary-for-invoking-provisions-of-gujarat-control-of-terrorism-and-organised-crime-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/02\/more-than-one-chargesheet-is-necessary-for-invoking-provisions-of-gujarat-control-of-terrorism-and-organised-crime-act\/","title":{"rendered":"More than one chargesheet is necessary for invoking provisions of Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench comprising B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ., (Vacation Bench) reversed the order of the Gujarat High Court, by which the applicant was denied the benefit of bail under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act). The Court held that existence of more than one charge sheet against the accused is essential for invoking the provisions of GCTOC Act.<\/p>\n

Issues Involved<\/span> <\/strong><\/h3>\n

The applicant contended that for invoking the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act) which is analogous to the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), two requirements have to be satisfied, i.e. the activity undertaken is either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such a crime syndicate and that in respect of such an activity, more than one charge-sheet must have been filed in the preceding period of last 10 years.<\/p>\n

However, the applicant claimed that in the instant case, the second requirement was not satisfied since the Chart indicating all the crimes registered against the applicant revealed that only FIR 64 of 2021 dated 26-07-2021 was in respect of an activity committed by two members of the syndicate.<\/p>\n

Further, to strengthen his case, the applicant submitted that he had already been released on bail in respect of other FIRs and it was only on account of him being implicated in FIR 64 of 2021 under the GCTOC Act, that he was deprived of his liberty.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, the State submitted that all the offences alleged in the FIRs which were given in the Chart, were directly or indirectly committed for the benefit of the crime syndicate of which the applicant is a member.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Findings <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Court noted that only one offence, i.e., FIR 64 of 2021 was there which had been committed by seven accused out of which two were the members of the syndicate and in respect to offences at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the Chart, no members of the syndicate were arrayed as accused.<\/p>\n

Considering the provisions of the GCTOC Act, the Court held that the following conditions will have to be fulfilled for invoking the provisions of the GCTOC Act:<\/p>\n