PRATAP JAYANTILAL THAVARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 10942 of 2026

==========================================================
                          PRATAP JAYANTILAL THAVAR
                                    Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHVESH R. ACHARYA(14664) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 07/05/2026

                                   ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for
and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.


[2.0] Present Criminal Misc. Application is filed by the applicant
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR
being C.R.No.11186009260133 of 2026 registered with
Veraval Police Station, District-Gir Somnath, for the
offence under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat
Control of Terrorism and Organized Crimes Act, 2015 (for short
“GUJCTOC Act”).


[3.0] Learned           advocate   for    applicant,    Mr.Acharya,          has
submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence
and GUJCTOC is wrongly invoked, particularly in the offence
pertaining to the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Even for the sake of
argument, if it is accepted that the applicant-accused is
involved in the prohibition offences, in that case also, PASA is


                                   Page 1 of 9
      R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




required to be invoked. He submitted that no case is made out
with regard to illegal activity of the applicant or he being a
member of an unlawful assembly. The present applicant is not
involved in continuous illegal activity. He submitted that seven
offences are registered, and that too under the Gujarat
Prohibition Act and Gambling Act etc, therefore, GUJCTOC is
wrongly invoked. He submitted that the applicant is arrested
on 20.02.2026 and trial is yet to be progressed, therefore, on
the ground of delay also, present applicant may be released.
Accordingly, he has prayed to allow the present application.


[4.0] Per contra, learned APP has opposed application on the
ground that the present applicant is connected with the
syndicate and he is a member of an “organized crime
syndicate” and he is engaged in the illegal activity with the
syndicate. It is submitted that present applicant is involved in
several offences. He further submitted that, in various police
stations of Gujarat, different offences are registered against
the      present           applicant   and     proceedings   for    PASA       and
externment came to be initiated. He also submitted that
present applicant is named in the FIR and his prima facie
involvement is there and as per the Section 20(4) (v) of the
GUJCTOC Act, he requested to dismiss the present application,
as present applicant is indulge in the bootlegging and illegal
activity.


[5.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the both sides and
going to the record, it appears that the allegation against the
present applicant is that present applicant has indulged in the
activity of bootlegging and he is engaged in transportation of


                                        Page 2 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                          ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




liquor, though liquor is prohibited in the State of Gujarat. In this
regard, various offences are registered against the applicant.
So far invocation of GUJCTOC Act and application of the
GUJCTOC Act is concerned, this Court, at this stage, has not
entered into applicability of Section 2 (c) of “continuous illegal
activity” on the part of present applicant. However, since
offence under GUJCTOC is registered, so far as           question to
establish the continuity of the “unlawful activity” is concerned,
the same is a question of evidence. On bare perusal of the
complaint, it appears that some offences are registered
against the present applicant. Considering the nature of the
allegation and delay in the trial, present application is
deserved consideration.


[6.0] Whether the present applicant is engaged in “organized
crime” or member of the syndicate is a disputed question of
the fact. However, while deciding the bail application for the
offence under the GUJCTOC Act, Court is supposed to consider
the provision of section 20 of the GUJCTOC Act and this Court is
of considered view that to invoke the provisions of the
GUJCTOC Act, following conditions are required to be fulfilled.


(i) That such an activity should be prohibited by law for the
time being in force;
(ii) That such an activity is a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment of three years or more;
(iii) That such an activity is undertaken either singly or jointly,
as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate;
(iv) That in respect of such an activity more than one charge-


                              Page 3 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




sheet must have been filed before a competent Court; and
(v) That the charge-sheet must have been filed within a
preceding period of ten years; and
(vi) That the Courts have taken cognizance of such offences.


[7.0] Herein undisputedly offences are registered against the
present applicant but as to whether present applicant, as
member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate had taken any benefit from such illegal activity or as
a syndicate he had continued illegal activity is a matter of trial.
Hence, this Court has considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties only with a purpose to consider
the bail applications and Court has not opined anything about
the applicability or otherwise of provisions of the GUJCTOC Act
while deciding the present bail application. While deciding the
bail application, Court has to consider only settled principle of
law to considered bail application only.



[8.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the
involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well   settled      principles   having     regard   to   the    facts     and
circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for
bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the


                                  Page 4 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




accused      at    the   time   of     trial       or   the    likelihood       of       his
abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations are required to be considered.


[9.0] Herein, this Court has considered the provision of Section
20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act and rigors of said section. In this
regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the
Hon’ble      Supreme      Court       in     the        case     of     Ranjitsingh
Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State reported in (2005) 5
SCC 294 and State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash
Gupta reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1727. Since
applicant is arrested in November 2025, trial will take its own
time. Considering the long period of incarceration and also
considering the fact that obviously commencement and
conclusion of trial will take its own time and therefore,
considering the right to speedy justice as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in howsoever serious
offence or under the special Act an accused is involved, on the
ground of delay in trial, the accused is entitled to be released
on bail without further discussing anything on merits, mainly
on the ground of delay in trial, present applications deserve
consideration.


[9.1] Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that trials under the special law are unduly delayed and rigors
of stringent bail provisions must yield to constitutional promise
of liberty though under Section 20(4) of the GUJCTOC Act and



                                     Page 5 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




under the special Act like NDPS Act pari materia provisions are
there    and       stringent        conditions        while     considering         bail
application is must, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in favor of
exercising the discretion in favor of the accused on the ground
of delay in trial if same is not attributable to the accused.


[9.2] the Court has to consider the question of liberty of
accused. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr. reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and Union of India
vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713. Further, in
absence of any justification for prolonged incarceration and
delay in trial and in light of the settled proposition of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant
vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
(SC)     3798           and     Manish          Sisodia       v.      Enforcement
Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 1920, as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that right to speedy trial
is essential facet of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India,   prolonged            incarceration       without     trial    amounts          to
preventive detention prior to adjudication without trial. In light
of the above, this Court is of considered view that rigors of
section 21 of the GUJCTOC Act stand deleted and hence,
without further discussing anything on merits, mainly on the
ground     of     delay        in   trial,   present     applications         deserve
consideration.




                                        Page 6 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                          ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




[10.0] Upshot, this Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
[2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti
Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra          Pradesh reported in (1978)        1 SCC 240.
Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the
accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial
conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle
of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception”
as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present applications
deserve consideration.

[11.0]        In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail,
prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular
bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is
ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR
being C.R.No.11186009260133 of 2026 registered with
Veraval Police Station, District-Gir Somnath on executing
a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;


    (a)     not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
    (b)     not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the



                              Page 7 of 9
   R/CR.MA/10942/2026                          ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




            prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police
            investigation and shall not to play mischief with the
            evidence collected or yet to be collected by the
            police;
    (c)     surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a
            week;
   (d)     not to leave State of Gujarat without prior permission
           of the Trial Court concerned;
   (e)     mark presence before the concerned police station
           once in a month for a period of six months between
           11 a.m. and 2 p.m.;
   (f)     furnish the present address of his residence to the
           Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time
           of execution of the bond and shall not change the
           residence without prior permission of Trial Court;
   (g)     if the applicant is found to be indulged in any illegal
           activities in future, the trial Court concerned will be
           free to issue warrant and cancel the bail granted to
           the applicant;
   (h) shall not enter Gir Somnath District for a period of
           SIX MONTHS except for the purpose of marking
           presence before the concerned police station and/or
           appearing before the Court.


[12.0]        The authorities will release the applicant only if he
is not required in connection with any other offence for the
time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is
committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue
warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.


                               Page 8 of 9
         R/CR.MA/10942/2026                                                               ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




   [13.0]               Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court
   having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the
   concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the
   above conditions, in accordance with law.


   [14.0]               At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by
   the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this
   stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.


   [15.0]               Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
   Direct service is permitted.


                                                                                   (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
   R.S. MALEK



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RIYAZMIYA SABIRMIYA MALEK(HC00180), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2026 16:21:42




                                                          Page 9 of 9