Gujarat High Court
Mahesh Gangubhaichhaiya Thro … vs State Of Gujarat on 30 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
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
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 orPage 8 of 41
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
(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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
(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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 aPage 20 of 41
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 thatPage 25 of 41
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2036/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 22:36:39 IST 2026