GUJCTOC invocation requires multiple charge-sheets against the organized crime syndicate, not against each individual member.

The applicant sought to quash an FIR registered 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 (GUJCTOC), and relevant sections of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was an active member of an organized crime syndicate led by Jaysukh Muljibhai Ranpariya, responsible for extortion and money laundering.

Although the applicant was not named in the initial FIR or the formal sanction order for prosecution, investigation revealed his role in managing "Sadhna Forex Private Limited" and using courier services to divert crime proceeds abroad via hawala channels.

The applicant left for Dubai on October 7, 2020, prior to the FIR's registration.

Due to his absence, the Investigating Officer placed his name in Column No. 2 (absconding accused) of the charge-sheet.

Consequently, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued, the applicant was declared a proclaimed offender, and a Look Out Circular (LOC) was opened.

The court primarily applied Section 2(1)(c) (continuing unlawful activity) and Section 2(1)(e) (organized crime) of the GUJCTOC Act, 2015.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the requirement of multiple charge-sheets applies to the organized crime syndicate as a whole and not to each individual member.

The court further cited Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka, holding that for offenses of abetting or facilitating organized crime (Sections 3(2) to 3(5)), individual prior charge-sheets are not a prerequisite for invocation.

Procedural rules under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding warrants and proclamations were also applied.

The Court rejected the applicant's contention that the lack of personal criminal antecedents precluded the application of the GUJCTOC Act.

Applying Zakir Abdul Mirajkar, the Court reasoned that the "nexus" with the syndicate is the core of "continuing unlawful activity"; if the syndicate has a history of multiple charge-sheets, a member facilitating its activities can be prosecuted regardless of their individual record.

Regarding the absence of a Section 22(2) sanction, the Court held that since the applicant was absconding, the investigation was incomplete; thus, his inclusion in Column No. 2 was a standard procedural step to apprise the trial court.

On the issue of abscondence, the Court noted that the applicant left India just before the FIR and suppressed his Dubai address in the current application.

The Court found that the Investigating Officer followed due process by obtaining an NBW and issuing a proclamation, which the applicant willfully ignored.

The Court held that: (i) multiple prior charge-sheets are not required for an individual accused if the syndicate they belong to meets the statutory criteria.

(ii) inclusion in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet is valid for absconding accused where the investigation is ongoing.

(iii) the issuance of an NBW, proclamation, and LOC was legal and justified by the applicant's conduct in evading the process of law.