MAHESH GANGUBHAICHHAIYA THRO GANGUBHAI MANSURBHAI CHHAIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
Decided on: 30-03-2026

<div> R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 2036 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/- ================================================================ </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>✔</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ================================================================ MAHESH GANGUBHAICHHAIYA THRO GANGUBHAI MANSURBHAI CHHAIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================ Appearance: MR SUDHIR I.NANAVATI, SR.ADVOCATE with MR PRITESH M SHAH(8405) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK A.DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Date : 30/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State. Page 1 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant through his father (i.e. the Power of Attorney holder of the applicant) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for the following reliefs : “(A) Quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including deletion of the petitioner's name from Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet; quashing of the portions and averments declaring the  petitioner as an absconder in the FIR registered with Jamnagar Police Station bearing C.R.No.11202008202186 of 2024 dated 15.10.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015, read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code; and consequentially, to quash all incidental and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including: the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the  petitioner;  the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender; and  the Look Out Circular (LOC) opened against the petitioner; proceedings under section 174(A) IPC, if any, initiated  against the Petitioner. in relation to the above FIR and the trial whereof is pending before the Court of Shri J.R.Shah, Learned Special Judge (GUJCTOC), Rajkot, Gujarat (Court Code: GJ01042) vide Criminal Case No. GCTOC-02/2021, Next Hearing date of Which is: 03/02/2026; Page 2 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and execution of all adverse proceeding including:  the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioner;  the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender; the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the  petitioner; and all other adverse and coercive proceedings/orders  passed against the petitioner including 174(A) IPC Proceedings. in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No.11202008202186 of 2024 dated 15.10.2020, registered with Police Station City 'A' Division, District Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under the GUJCTOC Act, 2015 read with the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial whereof is pending before the Court of Shri J.R.Shah, Learned Special Judge (GUJCTOC), Rajkot, Gujarat (Court Code: GJ01042) vide Criminal Case No GCTOC-02/2021, Next Hearing date of Which is: 03/02/2026; (C) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, in the facts and circumstancs of the present case.” 3. The impugned FIR bearing C.R. No.11202008202186 of 2020 came to be registered on 15.10.2020 before the City ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the GUJCTOC Act ’) read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Page 3 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE : 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.09.2020, the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, had received secret inputs that one Jaysukh Muljibhai Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel is operating an organized crime syndicate along with his associates. As per the secret intelligence, the members of the syndicate have been actively involved in the organized criminal activities, viz. extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, money laundering and other serious offences. 5. The prosecution alleges that the syndicate headed by the accused Jaysukh Muljibhai Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel comprised of 14 accused persons, namely, (1) Jaysukhbhai @ Jayeshbhai Muljibhai Patel, (2) Yashpalsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja, (3) Jashpalsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja, (4) Atul Viththalbhai Bhanderi, (5) Vashrambhai Govindbhai Miyatra, (6) Nileshbhai Mansukhbhai Toliya, (7) Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi, (8) Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi, (9) Pravinbhai Parsottambhai Chovatiya, (10) Jigar @ Jimmi Pravinchandra Adatiya, (11) Sunil Gokaldas Changani, (12) Anil Manjibhai Parmar, (13) Vasantbhai Page 4 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 Liladharbhai Mansata, and (14) Prafulbhai Jayantibhai Popat, which specifically targets the businessmen, landowners, realtors, builders and developers, thereby extorting large sums of money under threats of violence, death or dire consequences. Furthermore, it is alleged that the syndicate uses voice calls, WhatsApp and various VoIP applications to carry out these extortion threats. It is alleged by the prosecution that 59 criminal cases pertaining to the organized crimes have been registered against the members of the syndicate, either singly or jointly, either as a member of a syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receipt of the secret intelligence, it was duly registered in the Secret Information Register vide Entry No.03 of 2020 dated 30.09.2020. Thereafter, the said information along with the relevant material was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajkot Range, for taking necessary action. Upon consideration of the materials placed before him, the DIGP, Rajkot Range, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22(1)(a) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015, accorded approval for registering the FIR, vide written order dated Page 5 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 15.10.2020 ( Annexure-P11 ). Pursuant to the said order, the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.11202008202186 of 2020 came to be registered against all the aforesaid 14 accused persons on 15.10.2020 before the City ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the GUJCTOC Act read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code ( Annexure-P1 ). 7. As per the case of the prosecution, upon registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer conducted a comprehensive investigation into the alleged offence, and thereafter, submitted a proposal to the Home Department, Government of Gujarat, seeking mandatory prior sanction, as required under Section 22(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, to prosecute 15 individuals, including 14 accused persons named in the FIR, as well as one other individual, namely, Anilbhai Dineshbhai Dangariya. It is submitted that out of 15 accused persons, 12 accused were apprehended during the course of the investigation and 03 accused persons, namely, Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel, Sunil Changani and Ramesh Abhangi, since absconding, could not be arrested. Page 6 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 8. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Home Department, after careful consideration of the entire material on record along with the documents and record submitted during the course of investigation, vide order dated 08.04.2021, accorded sanction under Section 22(2) of the GUJCTOC Act for initiation of the prosecution against 15 accused persons ( Annexure-P12 ). It is submitted that pursuant to the sanction order dated 08.04.2021, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on the very same day against 12 accused persons, who had been apprehended ( Annexure-P13 ). In the said charge- sheet, in Column No.2, apart from 03 persons, namely, Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel, Sunil Changani and Ramesh Abhangi, who could not be arrested during the course of the investigation, the name of the present applicant, namely, Mahesh Gangubhai Chhaiya, has also been shown as an absconding accused. Thus, in the charge-sheet, in all, 16 individuals have been shown as the accused persons consisting of 12 accused persons who have been apprehended and 04 accused persons who have not been arrested. Page 7 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT-ACCUSED : 9. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr.Sudhir I.Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr.Pritesh M.Shah, while taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case as well as the provisions of Sections 2(1)(a), 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(f), 3, 4 and 22 of the GUJCTOC Act, has raised the following contentions : (1) In light of the provisions embodied in Sections 2(1)(a) (iii), 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f) read with Section 3(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, it becomes manifest that the stringent provisions of the Act cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The applicability of the said provisions is contingent upon the prior satisfaction and fulfillment of the following mandatory requirement, which is a condition precedent for invocation : (i) such activity shall be prohibited by law for the time being in force; (ii) such activity shall be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more; (iii) such activity shall be undertaken either singly or jointly, as member of organized crime syndicate or Page 8 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 on behalf of such syndicate; (iv) in respect of such activity, more than one charge-sheet must have been filed before a competent court; (v) the charge-sheet must have been filed within a preceding period of ten years; and (vi) the courts have taken cognizance of such offences. (2) During the preceding ten years, no cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more has been registered against the applicant. Furthermore, no charge-sheet has been filed in respect of any such offence nor has any court taken cognizance of any such offence against the applicant. (3) Admittedly, the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has he been attributed with any role whatsoever. Moreover, there is no averment in the FIR that the present applicant is a member of any organized crime syndicate. Even, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the applicant is, in any manner, associated with or connected with any such organized crime syndicate. Page 9 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 (4) The FIR refers to 59 offences allegedly registered against the syndicate leader Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel and his various associates, and reliance has been placed upon the same. However, in none of the said 59 offences, the name of the present applicant appears as an accused along with Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel or any other co-accused persons. (5) There is no reference of Sadhna Forex Private Limited in any of the said 59 FIRs. (6) The applicant has been residing in Dubai since 07.10.2020 in connection with his business activities (i.e. well prior to the registration of the impugned FIR). Furthermore, he has never been summoned to join the investigation regarding the alleged offence. (7) The sanction order dated 08.04.2021 records the existence of a prima facie case against 15 accused persons consisting of 12 apprehended and 03 absconding accused persons. Admittedly, the name of the present applicant Page 10 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 does not appear in the said sanction order, which indicates that the sanctioning authority did not find any prima facie material against him at the relevant point of time. Consequently, the sanction order was issued only in respect of 15 accused persons and no sanction or approval under Section 22(2) of the GUJCTOC Act was ever accorded qua the present applicant. (8) The inclusion of the name of the present applicant in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet as an absconding accused is wholly illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. Consequently, the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant and subsequently declaration of the applicant as a proclaimed offender and issuance of a Look- Out Circular (LOC) would not be sustainable in law. 10. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Gurjeet Singh Johar vs. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2019) SCC Online P&H 2606 , more particularly, paragraphs 14 and 15; Page 11 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 (2) Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 433 , more particularly, paragraph 32; and (3) Mohd.Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2022) 13 SCC 817 . SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE : 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik A.Dave appearing for the respondent-State, at the outset, has submitted that the statutory framework of the GUJCTOC Act is primarily intended to combat the collective activities of the organized crime syndicates. Consequently, the liability contemplated under the Act cannot be narrowly construed to apply solely to the individual criminal antecedents of the person physically executing the offence. It is contended that, where an organized crime syndicate operates through the instrumentality of an individual acting for or on its behalf, such conduct squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the GUJCTOC Act. According to Mr.Dave, the applicability of this provision is not contingent upon the personal criminal record of the individual perpetrator. Page 12 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 The absence of multiple registered offences, the non-filing of a charge-sheet, or a lack of prior judicial cognizance regarding offences punishable by three years or more does not, in itself, exclude an individual from the purview of the GUJCTOC Act — provided the act in question was committed for the benefit of, or on behalf of, the organized crime syndicate. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has further submitted that the requirement of filing more than one charge- sheet within the preceding ten years, as per Section 2(c) of the GUJCTOC Act, must be interpreted in the context of the overall continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate, rather than being strictly restricted to the individual accused who is alleged to be a member of such organized crime syndicate. 13. It is submitted that the legislative intent behind the enactment of the GUJCTOC Act is to address the menace of organized crime syndicates; consequently, the penal provisions are attracted based on the involvement in a collective criminal activity, rather than solely on the individual criminal history of the person committing the overt act. Page 13 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 14. While inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has submitted that the provision is couched in clear and unambiguous terms. He contends that the statute expressly prescribes life imprisonment for any individual who knowingly and willfully facilitates or assists the activities of an organized crime syndicate in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that the statutory scope is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass any person who consciously aids, abets, or otherwise contributes to the commission of organized crime on behalf of a syndicate, regardless of whether such individual has any prior criminal antecedents. 15. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has relied upon the following case-laws :- (i) Bharat Shantilal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2003) SCC Online Bom 1361 ; (2) Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka and others , reported in (2022) 12 SCC 753 ; and (3) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra Page 14 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 and others , reported in (2023) 20 SCC 408 . 16. So far as the role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has submitted that the kingpin of the organized crime syndicate is one Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel, who is operating from London (United Kingdom) and is currently in custody pending extradition. He allegedly directs the syndicate's international operations through various associates, maintaining a pattern of continuous criminal activity through violence and intimidation. It is submitted that the syndicate engages in diverse unlawful activities—including extortion, land grabbing, grievous assault, and kidnapping for ransom—to generate substantial illicit proceeds. These funds are allegedly laundered through various firms established in the names of syndicate members and associates. It is further alleged that these entities, in coordination with specific courier agencies, facilitate large-scale financial transactions and investments, ultimately diverting the generated funds abroad through hawala channels. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has further submitted that the investigation has uncovered incriminating material Page 15 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 linking the applicant - Mahesh Gangubhai Chhaiya to the alleged syndicate. It is contended that the applicant along with co-accused Sunil Changani, Jigar Adatiya, Vashram Ahir and Limesh Pabari are closely associated with the ‘Sadhna Forex Private Limited’, an entity purportedly associated with the said syndicate. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant and his partners maintained an account under the name ‘K.J.’ with R.C. Courier Service Company and V.P. Courier Service Company in Jamnagar. It is submitted that substantial sums, representing the proceeds of the organized crime, were transacted through this account and subsequently diverted abroad via hawala channels. On the basis of these facts, the prosecution maintains that the applicant was actively involved in managing the syndicate’s financial operations and facilitating the international transfer of funds generated through extortion and other organized criminal activities. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave, while inviting attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 22 of the GUJCTOC Act, has submitted that the competent authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajkot Range, after considering the material placed before him, granted approval for Page 16 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 registering the FIR, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act, and pursuant thereto, the FIR came to be registered against 14 accused persons on 15.10.2020 before the City ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar. 19. It is submitted that during the course of thorough and detailed investigation, the role of the present applicant-accused in connection with the said organized crime syndicate has been clearly revealed, and in that regard, the relevant links and evidence have also been unearthed/surfaced. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave has further submitted that during the investigation, despite repeated attempts, the applicant could not be traced out and, therefore, a warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be issued against him. However, the same could not be executed despite several attempts as the applicant remained absconded. Thereafter, a notice was duly published requiring his presence, however, as the applicant failed to appear, he was declared a proclaimed offender after following due process of law. It is further submitted that it subsequently came to light that the Page 17 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 applicant left the country and was intentionally evading his arrest. Therefore, a Look-Out Circular (LOC) was also issued against him. In view of the fact that the applicant was not apprehended, no further investigation qua him could be effectively carried out. In such circumstances, no prior sanction under Section 22(2) of the GUJCTOC Act for prosecuting the applicant could be sought for. Consequently, the question of filing the charge-sheet against him or the court taking cognizance does not arise at this stage. 21. It is submitted that since the investigation against the applicant is still pending, his name was not included in the earlier sanction order. Nevertheless, for the purpose of apprising the court, his name has been shown in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet filed against 12 apprehended persons as an absconding accused, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be illegal. It is, therefore, contended that the present application filed by the applicant is devoid of any substance, and merely highlights a technical ground. Therefore, it deserves to be rejected, and no relief as prayed for can be granted. Page 18 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS : 22. The Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned advocate for the respective parties. 23. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati appearing for the applicant-accused, in support of his case, has canvassed three- fold submissions. 24. The first argument advanced by learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati is that, over the preceding period of ten years, not a single offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more has been registered against the applicant-accused. The applicant has neither been charge-sheeted in respect of any such offence, nor has any competent court taken cognizance of any such offence against him. He has further submitted that out of the total 59 offences registered against the syndicate leader Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel and his various associates, the present applicant has not been arraigned as an accused in any of the said offences. Moreover, there is no material on record even to prima facie establish any nexus or association of the present applicant-accused with the said syndicate. It is, Page 19 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 therefore, submitted that the mandatory and sine qua non requirement envisaged under Section 2(1)(a), 2(1)(c), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of the GUJCTOC Act is not satisfied. Consequently, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked against the present applicant and, any action or proceedings initiated thereunder are liable to be held unsustainable in law. 24.1 Insofar as the contention or argument advanced by learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati is premised upon the relevant definitions provided in Section 2 of the Act, it would be apt to incorporate the same herein in order to maintain clarity and consistency in the judgment. Section 2 of the GUJCTOC Act reads thus : “SECTION 2 : Definitions (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "abet" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes- (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate for committing an offence under this Act; (b) xxx (c) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a Page 20 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 term of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence; (d) xxx (e) "organised crime" means any [continuing unlawful activity including extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber crimes having severe consequences, human trafficking racket] for Prostitution or ransom by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate , by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means; (f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organised crime;” (emphasis supplied) 24.2 Along with this, it would also be apt to take note of Section 3(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, which reads thus : “SECTION 3 : Punishment for terrorist act and organised crime. - (1) xxx (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of any terrorist act or an organised crime or any act preparatory to any terrorist act or organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.” 24.3 Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned Page 21 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, in light of the aforesaid provisions, the question that arises for the determination of this Court is, whether the definition of “continuing unlawful activity” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the GUJCTOC Act is required to be considered with reference to each individual member or with reference to the organized crime syndicate, as a whole. 24.4 The issue is no more res integra in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has, in clear and unambiguous terms, held that more than one charge-sheet is required to be filed in respect of an organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each individual, who is allegedly a member of such syndicate. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read thus : “ (c) More than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person. 87. The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. Page 22 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 88. In Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770 , a two-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, speaking through Justice Ranjana Desai (as the learned judge then was) held that: "37…... Section 2(1)(d) which defines 'continuing unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge-sheet have to be filed It is the membership of organized crime syndicate which makes a person liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from section 3(4) of the MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate. The link with the 'organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term 'continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in." (emphasis supplied) 89. Other courts, too, have held that persons who are alleged to be members of an organized crime syndicate need Page 23 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 not have more than one charge-sheet filed against them in an individual capacity. Rather, charge-sheets with respect to the organized crime syndicate are sufficient to fulfil the condition in Section 2(1)(d).” 24.5 The Bombay High Court, in the case of Sunil Ashok Kondugale vs. The State of Maharashtra , reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 1227 , while relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), has held as under : “13. Thus, what is important is the nexus or the link of the person with the organised crime syndicate and it is not necessary that more than one Charge-sheet is required to be filed against every accused person. Thus, at the stage of considering the Bail Application, what is required to be taken into consideration by the Court is the existence of a nexus or the link of the person with the organised crime syndicate and the link with the 'organised crime syndicate' is the crux of the term 'continuing unlawful activity'. Requirement of one or more Charge-sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate and not qua an individual member.” 24.6 Even, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hasmukh D.Suthar J.), while dealing with all the aforesaid provisions, has also deliberated this issue in the case of a co-accused, namely, Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi ( Criminal Misc. Application No.2049 of 2021, decided on 02.08.2024 ), wherein the Coordinate Bench has specifically observed in paragraph-11 as Page 24 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 under : “[11.0] Upon bare perusal of aforesaid provisions it is clear that, to invoke the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, prosecution has to show only that, the petitioner – accused is a member of syndicate or a gang and individual charge- sheet is not necessary and charge-sheet or offences against syndicate must have been registered. Even earlier offence registered against petitioner being I-CR No.221/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC were non-compoundable offences and within three days after registration of the said complaint, though the complainant was hospitalized, he was pressurized and coerced to enter into compromise and on the basis of compromise, proceedings of said FIR being I-CR No.221/2014 were quashed and set aside by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In this regard, the complainant of the said FIR has also given a statement and he is also cited as a witness in the impugned offence. He has stated that, though complainant in the said offence had sustained grievous hurt though under coercion he forced to settle the offence which clearly indicates the involvement and unlawful activity of present petitioner – accused. Even, the petitioner is also member of syndicate and number of witnesses have given statement before the Superintendent of Police and Dy.S.P. supporting the case of prosecution and perusing the investigation papers also it appears that the present petitioner is a member of organized crime syndicate. Considering statements of 24 witnesses including two Advocates (to maintain secrecy, security and interest of witnesses, names of witnesses are not mentioned). [11.1] Perusing the said statements it further appears that the present petitioner is a member of syndicate and he is close to accused No.1 and accused persons are involved in unlawful activities of syndicate and abetting the unlawful act of syndicate led by accused No.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 753 (3 Judges’ Bench) has been pleased to hold that, the requirement for invocation of offences under Sections 3(1) and sections 3(2) to 3(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2020 is that Page 25 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 more than two charge-sheets should be having been filed for the specified offences before the competent Court in the previous ten years. Further, it has been held that it applies only to the offence of organized crime punishable under Section 3(1) and not to offences specified in Ss.3(2) to (5) and that too, such charge-sheets need to be only qua the organized crime syndicate and not qua individual members and categorically held that, it is not essential that more than three charge-sheets have been filed against a person so named before a competent Court within the preceding period of 10 years and that Court had taken the cognizance of such offence. Hence, on the said ground, quashing of the impugned proceedings is not permissible as said requirement is only for the offences registered only under section 3(4) or in the case wherein to invoke the provision of section 3(1) herein against petitioner alleged that he is associated with syndicate and syndicate as syndicate in involved in unlawful activity. [11.2] Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), on the same issue has answered by elaborately discussing and considering the decisions in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra); State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 171 and Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs. State of Maharashtra and has been pleased to hold in paragraph Nos.76 and 77(c) as under: “76. The appellants argued that gambling is punishable with a maximum sentence of 2 years and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of MCOCA (which requires the commission of a crime punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more). However, not all the offences punishable under MCOCA have this requirement. The appellants have been charged under the following provisions of MCOCA: a. Section 3(1) i.e., the offence of committing organized crime requires the accused to have committed a cognizable offence which is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. Page 26 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 b. One part of Section 3(2) also contains a similar requirement to Section 3(1), namely persons can be accused of conspiring, attempting to commit, advocating, or knowingly facilitating the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, only if the offence in question is a cognizable one, which is punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. However, those accused of abetting the commission of organised crime need not themselves be charged with committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. They need only be abetting those who are guilty of committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years, which offence amounts to an organised crime. The definition of “abet” in Section 2(1) a) would be applicable in such cases. c. Section 3(4) provides that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate is liable to be penalized. The definition of an organized crime syndicate in Section 2(1) f) indicates that it is necessary to indulge in organized crime to be considered a member. Section 2(1)(e) indicates that persons are said to commit organized crime when they are involved in continuing unlawful activity. Continuing unlawful activity, in turn, means a prohibited activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. d. Section 3(5) stipulates that those who hold any property derived or obtained from commission of an organized crime or which has been acquired through the organized crime syndicate funds are liable to be punished. Once again, the definition of an organized crime requires the commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years of more. Hence, Section 3(5) MCOCA may be invoked only with respect to offences which are punishable with imprisonment of three years of more. Page 27 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 77(c). More than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person. The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.” [11.5] Further, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Syed has mainly stressed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandip Omprakash Gupta (supra) more particularly paragraph 29(vi)(a) wherein, it is observed that, for charging a person of organized crime or being a member of organized crime syndicate, it would be necessary to prove that the persons concerned have indulged in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one charge-sheets have been filed in competent court within the preceding period of ten years. But, in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (Supra), a Three Judges’ Bench has observed that charge- sheet not against individual but against the crime syndicate is required to be considered and said requirement to invoke offence under Section 3(1), not for other section of 3(2) to 3(5) of the GUJCTOC Act. The said pronouncement was not brought to the notice to the Hon’ble Bench or considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent pronouncement in the case of Sandip Omprakash Gupta (supra). In the case of Abdul Zakir Mirajkar (supra), the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra) and Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra have been considered and by elaborately discussing the provisions of MCOCA, the Apex Court has come to conclusion that more than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused and charge-sheet filed in respect of organized crime syndicate which is considered. Herein, it is not in dispute that more than one charge-sheet or offences are not registered against the petitioner individually, but 58 offences registered against original crime syndicate, which is mentioned in the impugned FIR. Page 28 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 Further, in aid of section 2(1)(a) of the GUJCTOC Act defined to abet an offence present petitioner is member of syndicate and associated with accused No.1. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he is abetting in the commission of organized crime and to abet an offence, as defined under Section 2(1(a) of the GUJCTOC Act, which is applicable in the case on hand. Hence, merely because earlier complaint was quashed is not a ground to consider that the petitioner – accused is not involved in or connected with the syndicate.” 24.7 It is a well-settled legal position that the provisions of a statute are not be construed in isolation but, it must be read as a whole. One provision of the Act should be construed with reference to the other provisions in the same Act to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions. It is also settled that whenever a question of interpretation arises, the same must be examined in the context of the object and purpose for which the statute has been enacted. Applying the said settled principle, by keeping in mind the object of the enactment of this special statute, a conjoint reading of the definitions contained in Sections 2(c) and 2(e) of the GUJCTOC Act would make it manifestly clear that where an organized crime syndicate operates through the instrumentality of an individual acting for or on its behalf, such act or conduct would certainly fall under the ambit of the Act. Page 29 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 24.8 In contemporary times, it is not uncommon for the organized crime syndicate to recruit individuals with no prior criminal record, to execute specific unlawful acts, such as, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, etc. In such a scenario, the mere absence of prior criminal record cannot serve as a shield against the applicability of the Act. If the material on record establishes the involvement of such a person in the commission of the offence at the behest of or in association with the organized crime syndicate, he cannot claim immunity from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that there is force in the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave that the requirement of filing more than one charge- sheet within the preceding ten years, as per Section 2(1)(c) of the GUJCTOC Act must be interpreted in the context of “continuing unlawful activity” of the organized crime syndicate, rather than being strictly restricted to the individual acts of the person who is alleged to be a member of such an organized crime syndicate. 24.9 In light of the aforesaid settled legal position and upon a Page 30 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 careful examination of the materials placed before the Court regarding the involvement of the present applicant-accused with the said organized crime syndicate, it prima facie appears that the applicant, along with other members of the syndicate, namely, Sunil Changani, Jigar Adatiya, Vashram Ahir and Limesh Pabari, is closely associated with the firm operating in the name and style ‘Sadhna Forex Private Limited’, an entity purportedly having nexus and associated with the said syndicate. The record reveals that the applicant, in collusion with the aforesaid co-accused, maintains accounts under the name ‘K.J.’ with two courier service agencies based in Jamnagar, namely, R.C. Courier Service Company and V.P. Courier Service Company. These accounts are being utilized for carrying out illicit financial transactions involving the proceeds of crime generated through the continuing unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate, and for channelizing such funds abroad through hawala. 24.10 A comprehensive material on record indicates that the applicant-accused is an active participant in the operations of the syndicate and has been involved in furtherance of its objective. It appears that the applicant-accused, in coordination Page 31 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 with the other accused persons, is engaged in managing the transfer of substantial amount of money, which are the proceeds of the serious criminal activities such as extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, etc., to abroad through hawala channels. Therefore, it clearly appears from the entire material on record that the applicant-accused is not merely associated with the syndicate, but is also an integral part and active member thereof and has been instrumental in conducting the financial dealings on behalf of and for the benefit of the syndicate, including diversion and transfer of funds abroad. 24.11 Thus, the material on record unequivocally indicates that the applicant-accused is associated with the said organized crime syndicate and is actively participating in its activities by undertaking financial transactions on its behalf and for its benefits, thereby facilitating and advancing the objective of the said syndicate. 24.12 In such circumstances, for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Act, the statutory requirement that more than one charge-sheet for the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more must have been registered Page 32 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 within a period of preceding 10 years is not required to be construed in isolation qua the present applicant, but in the context of the organized crime syndicate as a whole, with which the applicant-accused is connected. 24.13 Moreover, upon plain reading of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the essential ingredients of the Act constituting the offence stand prima facie satisfied. Consequently, there remains no doubt as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Act qua the present applicant-accused. 25. The second contention canvassed by learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati is that, upon registration of the FIR and upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted a proposal to the Home Department, Government of Gujarat, seeking mandatory prior sanction, as required under Section 22(2) of the GUJCTOC Act, to prosecute in all 15 accused persons including 12 apprehended and 03 absconding accused. It is urged that the Home Department, vide order dated 08.04.2021, accorded sanction to prosecute the said 15 accused persons, however, the name of the present applicant-accused Page 33 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 was admittedly not included in the said sanction order. Regardless the same, while submitting the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has mentioned the name of 12 accused persons in Column No.1 of the charge-sheet, and in Column No.2, along with 03 absconding accused persons, the name of the present applicant has also been included as an absconding accused, which, according to the learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, renders the action manifestly illegal. 25.1 This Court, having given its thoughtful consideration to the entire materials on record, finds that during the course of investigation, sufficient material was collected against 12 apprehended and 03 absconding accused persons, and on the strength of such material, the proposal seeking sanction to prosecute them was submitted to the Home Department. However, insofar as the present applicant-accused is concerned, although certain material did emerge, indicating his association with the syndicate, his nexus with its member and his role in furtherance of its activities, yet the investigation qua him remained incomplete as he had absconded abroad even prior to the registration of the offence. Page 34 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 25.2 In such circumstances, in the absence of an adequate and complete material to substantiate all aspects of his alleged involvement, more particularly, with regard to the entire transactions undertaken by the applicant-accused on behalf of the syndicate, no proposal seeking sanction to prosecute him came to be forwarded to the Home Department. The omission of his name in the sanction order, therefore, cannot be said to be either arbitrary, illegal or unjustified. 25.3 At the same time, the material which has surfaced during the investigation, prima facie, indicates that the present applicant-accused is associated with the syndicate and he has played a vital role in managing its financial operations, including facilitating transfer of funds abroad through hawala channels. 25.4 In light of such material, the Investigating Officer has chosen to include his name in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet, which is prescribed for the accused persons against whom the investigation is incomplete or who are yet to be apprehended. Such inclusion is consistent with the established legal practice and does not suffer from any infirmity. Page 35 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 25.5 It is, thus, manifest that, as the investigation against the present applicant is still underway and remains incomplete, no question arises at this stage of seeking sanction to prosecute him, submitting a charge-sheet against him or taking cognizance by the court qua him. The mere mention of his name in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet, on the basis of the material disclosing his involvement with the syndicate and his role in furtherance of its activities cannot be construed as being impermissible in law. 25.6 In view of the aforesaid, the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant is wholly misconceived and rests upon hyper-technical plea, therefore, the same is devoid of any substantive merits and does not deserve consideration. 26. Lastly, learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati has contended that the present applicant is staying in Dubai since 07.10.2020 in connection with his business activities (i.e. well prior to the registration of the impugned FIR). It is urged that at no point of time the applicant was served with any notice or communication, calling upon him to remain present during the course of investigation. It is submitted that there is no cogent material on record to indicate that the present applicant is involved or Page 36 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 associated with the said organized crime syndicate. 26.1 In the backdrop of the aforesaid, it is contended that the authorities have proceeded to issue a warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to declare the applicant as a proclaimed offender, and also initiated proceedings of issuing Look-Out Circular (LOC) without affording the applicant any opportunity of hearing or issuing prior notice. It is submitted that such action is in clear breach of the settled principles of natural justice and, therefore, it is manifestly illegal and unsustainable in law. 26.2 It is strenuously argued that the Investigating Officer cannot resort to seeking issuance of warrant of arrest from the court of the learned Special Judge as a mere device to circumvent his obligation to conduct a fair and just investigation, solely with a view to facilitating the declaration of the applicant as a proclaimed offender. In support of his contention, learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Gurjeet Singh Johar (supra). Page 37 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 27. Considering the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, and upon careful and thorough examination of the entire material placed before this Court, at the outset, it is noteworthy that the applicant, along with other accused, is alleged to have committed very grave and serious offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the GUJCTOC Act read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which are admittedly cognizable offences. 28. The material placed before this Court also suggests that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the applicant, along with other members of the syndicate, namely, Sunil Changani, Jigar Adatiya, Vashram Ahir, Ramesh Abhangi and Limesh Pabari, is closely associated with the firm operating in the name and style ‘Sadhna Forex Private Limited’, an entity connected with the said syndicate, and is maintaining the accounts under the name ‘K.J.’ with two courier service agencies based in Jamnagar, namely, R.C. Courier Service Company and V.P. Courier Service Company, which are being used to facilitate illicit financial transactions and diverting the funds abroad through hawala channels. The material on record further Page 38 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 suggests that the applicant is an active member and integral part of the syndicate, handling substantial funds generated through serious criminal activities, including extortion, land grabbing, contract killing and other similar type of serious offences, and also undertakes financial transactions on behalf of and for the benefit of the syndicate, thereby advancing its unlawful objectives. 29. It is pertinent to note that the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jaysukh Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel, along with those entrusted with the management of its financial affairs (i.e. the present applicant as well as Sunil Changani and Ramesh Abhangi, who have absconded) are stated to have left the country, with a view to evading the process of law. It further transpires that the accused Limesh Pabari has already shifted to Dubai in 2017. It is noteworthy that the accused persons were not found at their respective residence and all efforts undertaken by the Investigating Officer to secure their presence gone into vain. 30. Considering the fact that the offence in question is cognizable in nature, the Investigating Officer duly obtained the Page 39 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the same could not be executed. Consequently, the proceedings came to be initiated for declaring the accused persons as absconders. However, despite issuance of due publication of the proclamation, the applicant failed to appear before the learned Special Judge (GUJCTOC), Rajkot, therefore, he was declared as proclaimed offender. 31. It has further emerged that the applicant is presently residing abroad, and in view thereof, a Look-Out Circular (LOC), has been issued against him. The aforesaid steps taken by the authorities appear to be in consonance with law and do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity or illegality. 32. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant with regard to non-service of notice lacks merit. The material on record clearly indicates that the applicant has deliberately withheld the particulars of his present residential address. Even in the present application instituted through the Power of Attorney holder (i.e., his father), only the local address of the applicant — where the applicant is admittedly unavailable — has been furnished, while his address in Dubai has been deliberately Page 40 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 suppressed. Such a conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to evade due process of law, which cannot be ignored or overlooked. In the considered opinion of this Court, considering the entire material on record as well as the overall conduct of the applicant-accused, the reliefs sought for by the present applicant cannot be granted. 33. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plea regarding non- service of notice would be of no avail to the case of the applicant in any manner. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application is devoid of any merits and substance, therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) / MOINUDDIN Page 41 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:33:36 IST 2026</div>