JUDGMENT : [Nikhil S. Kariel, J.] 1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.N. D. Nanavati appearing with learned Advocate Mr.H. S. Tolia for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021, learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing with learned Advocate Mr.H. M. Shah for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 and learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Jal Unwalla appearing with learned Advocate Mr.M.T. Pathak for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin appearing with learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent State. 2. Since the applicants have been arraigned as accused and are presently in custody in connection with a common FIR, and since the applications were heard jointly, this Court deems it appropriate to pass a common order in all the three applications. 3. The applicants herein have been arraigned as accused in connection with FIR No.11202008202186 of 2020 registered with Jamnagar City “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar dated 15.10.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2) and 120B of IPC and Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (for short “GUJCTOC Act”/”the Act”) and for offences punishable under Sections 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of IPC and have been arrested on various dates namely the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 being arrested on 16.10.2020, applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 being arrested on 16.10.2020 and applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 being arrested on 29.1.2021, have preferred the present applications for being released on regular bail, more particularly after the Investigating Officer has laid the charge-sheet on 8.4.2021. 4. Before adverting to the facts, it would be relevant to mention that the FIR in question inter alia alleges that one Jaysukh Mulji Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel is involved in running an organized crime syndicate in Jamnagar, which is involved in extortion, landgrabbing, contract killing, and money lending by use of violence and threat of violence and criminal intimidation. It is alleged that the crime syndicate has been targeting businessmen especially landowners and realtors or developers by intimidating them and threatening them with fear of grievous injury and threat to life with the aim of obtaining illegal monetary and financial gains. It is alleged that the crime syndicate has been targeting businessmen especially landowners and realtors or developers by intimidating them and threatening them with fear of grievous injury and threat to life with the aim of obtaining illegal monetary and financial gains. That the FIR lists a total of 59 FIRs registered against the members of organized crime syndicate in various police stations. The FIR specifically names applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 and applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13738 of 2021 and whereas specific roles have been attributed to the said applicants, whereas the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022, though not named in the FIR, has been arraigned as accused No.1 in the Column No.1 of the Charge-sheet inter alia with regard to the accused persons in custody. It would also be pertinent to mention that the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel is stated to have been arrested by the Police of the United Kingdom and whereas he is presently in custody in the said country, and whereas proceedings for extraditing the said person to India are going on in the said country. 5. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.N. D. Nanavati for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 has submitted that the present applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused in the FIR and whereas it is submitted that as such the present applicant was a victim of the organized crime syndicate, rather than being a member of the said syndicate. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati that as per the the allegation in the FIR and the charge-sheet, the present applicant had been involved in routing ill-gotten wealth and funding activities of various members of the organized crime syndicate. That the applicant was in constant contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel over VOIP calls for past few years and that the applicant had in the month of January 2020 transferred an amount of Rs.2.10 crore to the organized crime syndicate with the purpose of financing the activities of the syndicate. It also stated that as far as the material collected during the investigation is concerned, according to the learned Sr. It also stated that as far as the material collected during the investigation is concerned, according to the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati, one Satish Ratilal Modi is alleged to be the driver of the present applicant who has stated that upon the instructions given by the co-accused one Nilesh Tolia and the applicant, the said witness had provided a second-hand mobile and sim card to Nilesh Tolia for the purpose of talking with Jayesh Patel. It is also alleged that the said witness had upon instruction of the applicant gone to the office of the co-accused Nilesh Tolia and had taken one Hiteshbhai (witness) to a residential society where a person (co-accused Mukesh Abhangi) had given a black colour bag to Nilesh Tolia and whereas the said witness driver and witness Hitesh had returned back to the office of the co-accused Nilesh Tolia with the said bag. 5.1. It is also submitted that witness Hitesh i.e. Hitesh Amrutlal Mehta working in the office of coaccused Nilesh Tolia has, in his statement dated 1.11.2020, alleged that he had been instructed by co-accused Nilesh Tolia that co-accused Mukesh Abhangi would call the said witness and the witness shall collected an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from the co-accused Mukesh Abhangi and bring it to the office of co-accused Nilesh Tolia. It is further alleged by the said witness that he had received a call from co-accused Mukesh Abhangi and later on from co-accused Nilesh Tolia who had instructed the said witness to take the car of the present applicant and his driver since the amount, which was to be collected was huge and as per such instructions, driver of the applicant Satish Modi had come in the car of the present applicant and witness Hitesh had gone in the said car and had collected the amount from Mukesh and had returned back to office of Nilesh Tolia. The said version of Satish Modi and Hitesh Mehta as regards the collecting amount has been reiterated by witness Nikunjbhai Jaisukhlal Bhut in his statement dated 4.3.2021. Learned Sr. The said version of Satish Modi and Hitesh Mehta as regards the collecting amount has been reiterated by witness Nikunjbhai Jaisukhlal Bhut in his statement dated 4.3.2021. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that apart from the above three statements, there was no other material against the applicant submitted by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet and whereas it is submitted that later on further investigation was also carried out and whereas as per the statement of one unnamed witness dated 21.6.2021 one Sunil Changani had helped his Expartner Kunal Mehta to recover some money, which was due from the present applicant by involving Jayesh Patel i.e. the leader of the syndicate. Furthermore, according to learned Sr. Advocate, one witness Deepak Hemantbhai Chhatrala had in his statement dated 3.9.2021 inter alia mentioned that the applicant was a partner of Sunil Changani in the year 2013 in the business related to share – satta and whereas since there was some dispute with regard to accounts, the said Sunil Changani and the applicant had parted ways. 5.2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that beyond the material referred to herein above, there is no other material which has been collected against the present applicant in support of the allegations that the present applicant was a member of organized crime syndicate or he was aiding and abetting the syndicate in question. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that as such while the FIR lists a total of 59 FIRs filed against the members of the organized crime syndicate, the present applicant is not named in even one of them. 5.3. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would further submit that while Section 2(1)(a) defines the word “abet” and states in detail as to what would constitute abetment as per the provisions of the said Act and whereas it is submitted that the FIR and the subsequent investigation have not recovered any material to show that the present applicant had, in fact, abetted, even as per the definition of Section 2(1)(a), organized crime syndicate. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that Section 2(1)(c) defines the term “continuing unlawful activity”, Section 2(1)(f) defines the term “organized crime syndicate” and Section 2(1)(e) defines the term “organized crime”. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that Section 2(1)(c) defines the term “continuing unlawful activity”, Section 2(1)(f) defines the term “organized crime syndicate” and Section 2(1)(e) defines the term “organized crime”. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate that there is no material which has been gathered by the Investigating Officer, which would go to show that the present applicant was either member of the organized crime syndicate, having committed any organized crime or having indulged in continuing any unlawful activity. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that the only material that could be gathered, prior to the further investigation being carried out, being that the driver of the applicant at the instruction of the present applicant as well as one co-accused Nilesh Tolia having provided a mobile phone and sim card to said Nilesh Tolia. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that reading the statement of the said driver it clearly appears that the co-accused Nilesh Tolia had, in fact, asked the witness i.e. driver of the present applicant to provide a mobile phone and sim card for the purpose of the said co-accused Nilesh Tolia talking with Jayesh Patel. It is further submitted that insofar as the second transaction about the driver of the present applicant having driven the car of the present applicant with an employee of the co-accused Nilesh Tolia, who had collected an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from co-accused Mukesh Abhangi. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that neither of these acts would show that the present applicant had, in any way, done any activity prohibited by law, either as a member of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the organized crime syndicate, rather a careful perusal of the statement reveals that the present applicant was, in fact, acting upon the instruction of the co-accused Nilesh Tolia, who was otherwise known to the present applicant. 5.4. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer after the charge-sheet had been filed would clearly reveal that the present applicant was, in fact, a victim of the organized crime syndicate, rather than a member of the said syndicate. 5.4. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer after the charge-sheet had been filed would clearly reveal that the present applicant was, in fact, a victim of the organized crime syndicate, rather than a member of the said syndicate. It is submitted that the statement of the unnamed secret witness clearly reveals that one Sunil Changani had helped his friend to recover money from the applicant, which money was allegedly owed by the present applicant to one Krunal Mehta, who happened to be a partner of the present applicant by involving Jayesh Patel, who was the leader of the organized crime syndicate. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that the present applicant is in jail since 16.10.2020 and whereas considering that there are no antecedents of the applicant concerned being involved in any crime and also considering the very limited material collected by the Investigating Officer prior to the charge-sheet being filed and also considering the later statement, which reveals that the applicant was the victim of the said syndicate in question, it is requested that the applicant may be released on regular bail, subject to any condition that may be deemed appropriate by this Court. 5.5. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13738 of 2021. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that the present applicant is named as accused in the FIR and whereas it is alleged that the present applicant is in possession of unaccounted property on behalf of the organized crime syndicate. It is also alleged that the applicant has been receiving share of the illegal proceeds of the said crime syndicate and whereas the applicant was also abetting the organized crime syndicate by rendering financial assistance. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that of all the 59 FIRs mentioned in the FIR, the present applicant had been named as an accused in only one FIR and whereas the said FIR of the year 2014 has already been quashed by this Court vide an order dated 24.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.21670 of 2014 on consent of the First Informant. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that considering such quashment of the FIR, there would not be any antecedents against the present applicant. Learned Sr. Application No.21670 of 2014 on consent of the First Informant. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that considering such quashment of the FIR, there would not be any antecedents against the present applicant. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that as far as the investigation is concerned, the Investigating Officer has relied upon three transactions. It is submitted that the first transaction was with regard to a property being purchased in the name of one Dhruti Jayesh Patel i.e. wife of the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel and whereas according to the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta, as appearing from the statement of witness Sanjay Chokshi the present applicant wanted to purchase the property, for which the price had been negotiated to Rs.2.60 crore, which was to be paid within 6 to 8 months and whereas Rs.2.20 crore was paid by cash and Rs.40,55,000/- was paid by cheque. It is alleged that at the time of executing the sale deed, instead of the name of the applicant, the name of the wife of Jayesh Patel was shown as purchaser. As against the same, learned Sr. Advocate would submit that while the present applicant had paid an amount of Rs.1 crore, one Dharmesh Patel, brother of Jayesh Patel had threatened the present applicant over the phone, informing that the present parcel of land was required by Jayesh Patel and whereas the applicant should back out from the deal and fearing for his life, the present applicant had backed off from the deal and whereas Pravin Chovatia, Anil Dangaria and Sanjay Choksi executed the sale deed in favour of the Dhruti Jayesh Patel and whereas the applicant had not even received the amount of Rs.1 crore paid by him to Sanjay Choksi. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta that the said fact has been confirmed by the witness one Jayesh Sanghani. Thus, according to learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta, insofar as the said transaction is concerned, the present applicant was, in fact, a victim rather than a member of the crime syndicate. 5.6. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta that the said fact has been confirmed by the witness one Jayesh Sanghani. Thus, according to learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta, insofar as the said transaction is concerned, the present applicant was, in fact, a victim rather than a member of the crime syndicate. 5.6. Insofar as the second transaction with regard to a scheme named J. J. Jasodanath, which was owned by one Mr.Jay Falia and his father Mr.Jayantilal Falia, is concerned, while it is alleged that the applicant had tried to settle his debt with secret witness No.11 by using certain plots from the said property i.e. J. J. Jasodanath scheme, it has been submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate that, in fact, the owner of the scheme Jay Falia had received an extortion demand by the owner of the crime syndicate Jayesh Patel demanding 16 plots from the said scheme and whereas the said owner had spoken to one witness Dilip Mungra to intervene on his behalf and whereas upon such intervention, the leader of the syndicate Jayesh Patel had threatened the owner, who had later on informed the applicant as well as Dilip Mungra not to intervene and whereas the present applicant was requested to return the papers of the 16 files. Thus, according to the learned Sr. Advocate, the present applicant did not have anything to do with the said property. 5.7. The third aspect, according to the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mehta, is with regard to purchase of immovable property for Rs.24 crore by one M/s.Shivdhara Buildcon, which was a company inter alia promoted by son of the present applicant. It is stated that the money in question had been contributed by the partners of the said firm and whereas one Suresh Kachhadiya, a close relative of the applicant, upon request of the applicant, had taken a loan from HDFC Bank and had transferred the amount to the applicant who, in turn, had paid the same to the land owners. It is stated that the partners are still indebted to Suresh Kachhadiya and his family who have been paying the EMI of the loan in question. 5.8. Thus, according to the learned Sr. It is stated that the partners are still indebted to Suresh Kachhadiya and his family who have been paying the EMI of the loan in question. 5.8. Thus, according to the learned Sr. Advocate, none of these transactions effectively establishes that either the present applicant was a member of the organized crime syndicate, nor does it establish that the present applicant as, in fact, aiding or abetting the organized crime syndicate in committing continuous unlawful activities. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that while it is alleged that some money had been paid to the applicant who had, in turn, transferred the said money to other co-accused, the same is a bald statement without any corroboration that while there is an allegation of the applicant holding some portion of land situated at Kanusumra on the outskirt of Jamnagar, still there is no material produced to show that the applicant had any control over any part of the said land. 5.9. Insofar as telephonic conversations with certain persons are concerned, according to the learned Sr. Advocate, while the said persons were, in fact, co-accused, but at the same time, the present applicant had a perfectly justifiable reason to talk to the said co-accused, more particularly in course of day-to-day business of the present applicant and whereas such telephonic conversations, according to the learned Sr. Advocate, should not be the material upon which the present applicant could be arraigned as accused. 5.10. It is further submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate that the only FIR against the present applicant having been quashed, the said FIR could not be referred to as being an antecedent against the present applicant and whereas there being no material collected during the course of investigation against the present applicant, which would establish that the present applicant is either member of the organized crime syndicate or is abetting the organized crime syndicate, the present applicant ought to be released by this Court, more particularly the present applicant being in custody since almost two years i.e. from 16.10.2020. 5.11. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta would also rely upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of co-accused, Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditiya Vs. 5.11. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta would also rely upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of co-accused, Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditiya Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No.1656 of 2022 and allied cases) and would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court, while it has directed release of the appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court, yet the judgement should be read in rem and not in personam. Learned Sr. Advocate has placed reliance upon paragraph 19 to urge that issue of grant of bail to an accused, more particularly under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., is integrally linked with the constitutional commitment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Sr. Advocate has further placed reliance upon paragraph 30 of the said decision to submit that default bail is intrinsically connected with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and whereas learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that even though the present applicant had not questioned the order granting extension like the appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court, yet the same by itself may not be a waiver of the right accrued to the applicant, since fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be waived by a person, therefore, this Court may consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail. In support of such contention, the applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Anr, reported in 1959 SC 149, in case of Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Commissioner and Ors., reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 and in case of Behram Khurshid Pesikaka Vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1955 SC 123 . 5.12. At this stage, learned Sr. Advocate would also submit that in view of the fact that the present application was pending consideration of this Court, though the present applicant had preferred an application inter alia for being released on default bail before the learned District and Sessions Court, Rajkot, yet vide an order dated 20.10.2022 the said application had been withdrawn by the present applicant. Thus submitting, learned Sr. Advocate would request this Court to consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail. 6. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Unwalla appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Pathak for applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022. Thus submitting, learned Sr. Advocate would request this Court to consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail. 6. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Unwalla appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Pathak for applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that while the present applicant is arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet, the present applicant had not been arraigned as an accused in the FIR. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that except for the present FIR, the present applicant had not been named as an accused in any FIRs herein before. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that there is nothing on record to show that the present applicant is part of the organized crime syndicate, nor would the applicant aid or abet the organized crime syndicate, in any manner. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that as a matter of fact, the present applicant was working as an accountant for approximately 110 firms/companies since last more than 12 years and whereas the present applicant was also doing the accounting work for the main accused person namely Jayesh Patel. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that merely on account of such an association, the present applicant is sought to be arraigned as an accused. Learned Sr, Advocate would also submit that insofar as the requirement of the Act i.e. for the purpose of alleging continuing unlawful activities the requirement being more than one charge-sheet having been filed before a competent Court within a preceding period of 10 years and whereas the Court having taken cognizance of the said offence is not fulfilled in the instant case, more particularly the present being the only FIR in which the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused and whereas learned Sr. Advocate would rely upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2022) SSC Online Guj 756 in support of his submission. Having regard to such submissions, learned Sr. Advocate would request that this Court may consider releasing the present applicant, more particularly the present applicant being in custody from 29.1.2021 i.e. in custody for approximately 22 months. 7. As against the submissions by the learned Sr. Advocates on behalf of the applicants, the present applications have been vehemently objected to by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin with learned APP Mr. 7. As against the submissions by the learned Sr. Advocates on behalf of the applicants, the present applications have been vehemently objected to by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin with learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent State. The objections on behalf of the State with respect to individual applicant are as below:- 7.1. Insofar as applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the said applicant was found to be in regular contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel through WhatsApp calls. It is submitted that the applicant had, in fact, transferred an amount of Rs.2.10 crore in the year 2020 to the to the Syndicate which act, according to the learned PP, was abetting the unlawful activities of the Syndicate. Learned Public Prosecutor has also stressed upon the statement of the driver of the said applicant one Satish Ratilal Modi, who in his statement, according to the learned PP, revealed the involvement of the applicant with the organized crime syndicate. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that at the instructions of the present applicant and other co-accused the driver of the present applicant had provided a mobile phone and sim card to the co-accused Nilesh Tolia, more particularly for the purpose of the said Nilesh Tolia talking with the leader of the organized crime syndicate. Learned Public Prosecutor further relied upon the statement of the said driver as well as another person i.e. witness Hitesh Mehta, who was an employee of the co-accused Nilesh Tolia to submit that the vehicle and the driver of the present applicant were used to facilitate transfer of a huge amount i.e. around Rs.75,00,000/-, which was collected by Hitesh Mehta from co-accused Mukesh Abhangi, whereas the money was transferred using the car of the applicant by driver of the applicant Satish Modi. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that such facts clearly reveal the involvement of the present applicant in the organized crime syndicate and also clearly reveal that the present applicant had abetted the organized crime syndicate. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor would request this Court not to entertain the application of the present applicant. 7.2. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that such facts clearly reveal the involvement of the present applicant in the organized crime syndicate and also clearly reveal that the present applicant had abetted the organized crime syndicate. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor would request this Court not to entertain the application of the present applicant. 7.2. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the said applicant is arraigned as accused No.8 in the FIR and whereas the Court of learned Special Judge has framed charges against 12 arrested and charged accused on 29.8.2022, including the present applicant. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed strong reliance on statement of secret witness No.11. It is submitted that the said applicant had entered into a transaction with the said secret witness for scheme of land known as J. J. Jasodanath and whereas the applicant was indebted to the said secret witness No.11 with regard to the transaction and whereas since the applicant was not in a position to clear his debt, he had offered a property to the said secret witness, who had refused to accept the same. It is alleged that the applicant had thereafter involved Jayesh Patel, leader of the organized crime syndicate to threaten and pressurize the secret witness to accept the proposal of the applicant. According to the learned PP, the statement further reveals that thereafter the said leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel had started extorting land from the said secret witness and approximately 50000 sq ft land had been extorted by the said syndicate, comprising of 26000 sq ft from the above referred scheme J. J. Jasodanath and remaining 24000 sq ft from charge-sheeted witness Ashvin Virani, who was running a scheme known as Jay Hari-3 (Khodal Villa). It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that around 18 different sale deeds had been executed by the secret witness No.11 and whereas the purchasers were either creditors of the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel or creditors of the present applicant or persons known to the accused. It is also alleged that while total sale consideration of Rs.1.50 crore had been paid through cheque to the secret witness No.11 as seller and whereas around Rs.72,00,000/- had been returned back to the co-accused Anil Dangaria by way of cash. It is also alleged that while total sale consideration of Rs.1.50 crore had been paid through cheque to the secret witness No.11 as seller and whereas around Rs.72,00,000/- had been returned back to the co-accused Anil Dangaria by way of cash. Learned Public Prosecutor would also rely upon the investigation papers to submit that from the money extorted from secret witness No.11, the present applicant along with other co-accused had received their share. It is also alleged that in September 2020 co-accused Anil Dangaria had also received an amount of Rs.1,85,75,000/- as extortion amount from secret witness No.1 out of which the present applicant had received an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and whereas later on an amount of Rs75,00,000/- had been given to co-accused Nilesh Tolia through his accountant and driver of co-accused Praful Popat. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that wife of coaccused No.1 Jayesh Patel had purchased a house for which cash amount of Rs.2 crore, which was over and above the Jantri rate had been paid by the applicant. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that from further investigation it is also revealed that a portion of valuable land situated at Village Kanusumra on the outskirt of Jamnagar City had been sold to two different persons, with the help of present applicant and his brother and whereas the said transaction was entered into on basis of forged power-of-attorney of the original owners of the land, who are secret witnesses No.39 to 43. According to the learned Public Prosecutor part of the said land is occupied and is in control of the present applicant. 7.3. Learned Public Prosecutor on basis of the above submissions would urge that enough material has been gathered by the investigation to establish a prima facie case with regard to the role of the present applicant as a member of the organized crime syndicate and whereas the present applicant was clearly engaged in continuing unlawful activity on behalf of the said organized crime syndicate. Learned Public Prosecutor would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Vs. Learned Public Prosecutor would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2022 vide judgement dated 24.8.2022 to submit that the requirement of law is not that there should be more than one charge-sheet filed against an accused, rather the requirement is more than one charge-sheet filed before a competent Court within preceding period of ten years against the organized crime syndicate. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that such enunciation by the Hon’ble Apex Court would clearly negate submission on part of the said applicant that he would not be covered under the definition of continuing unlawful activity as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the GUJCTOC Act. 7.4. Insofar as the submission of the applicant relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditiya Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), more particularly with regard to considering the case of the applicant for grant of default bail, the said submission, according to the learned PP, would be completely untenable. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court the applicants had initially challenged the order of the learned Special Court, whereby extension of time of 180 days, on report dated 21.1.2021, had been accepted. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the orders of the Special Court under challenge before this Court in Applications preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., had been decided by a common judgement dated 15.9.2021 by a learned Coordinate Bench, against which the applicants had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that without there being any challenge to the order of the learned Special Court, extending time for investigation, as had been the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court and without any pleadings whatsoever in that regard, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., may not direct release of the present applicant even on the ground that the fundamental rights of the present applicant may have been violated on account of the extension of time by the learned Special Court. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it was and it is open for the applicant to have preferred appropriate applications before appropriate forum under appropriate provisions of law and whereas in an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., this Court may not exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., or even Article 226 of the Constitution to direct release of the present applicant on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that while it is true that fundamental rights may not be waived, but at the same time, it is also equally true that suo motu intervention by a Court would only be in appropriate cases, more particularly where the litigant is handicapped from approaching a Court on account of situation beyond his control. In the instant case, according to the learned PP, the applicants are the persons, who have been arraigned as accused under the provisions of an enactment inter alia brought into effect for the purpose of controlling and effectively weeding out organized crime and whereas it is also apparent that the applicants have been agitating for being released on bail before the learned Sessions Court as well as before this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the present applicants having not chosen to exercise a remedy, which was well available with them cannot now turn around and put the onus of their release on this Court, more particularly the applicants having not chosen to exercise the right available with them. Learned Public Prosecutor would, therefore, submit that since there is no challenge by the present applicants, this Court may not interfere insofar as the aspect of default bail is concerned. Having regard to such submissions, learned Public Prosecutor would request this Court to reject the present application. 7.5. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the said applicant was a close confidant of the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel. It is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that the leader of the organized crime syndicate had extorted approximately 50000 sq ft of land from two persons namely witness No.11 i.e. with regard to a scheme named J. J. Jasodanath, admeasuring about 26000 sq ft and 24000 sq ft from witness Ashvin Virani, who was having a scheme named Jay Hari-3 (Khodal Villa). It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that vide registered Sale Deed dated 30.7.2020 four plots of land were purchased by the father of the present applicant. It is alleged that while a total of Rs.1.50 crore had been paid to the seller i.e. secret witness No.11 through cheque, and whereas the market value of the land purchased by the father of the applicant was Rs.1.14 crore, whereas the amount of Rs.1.50 crore was for a total of 18 registered sale deeds. It is also alleged that out of Rs.1.50 crore, Rs.72,00,000/- had been returned back to the present applicant by secret witness No.11. As per the confidential statement of the present applicant, out of the said Rs.72,00,000/-, Rs.40,00,000/- was given to coaccused Pravin Chovatia and Rs.12,00,000/- was given to the wife of the accused No.1 Jayesh Patel. 7.6. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that as per the statements of the secret witnesses No.1, 9, and 11, they had deposited extortion money in 2 Angadia Firms of which an amount of Rs.5.36 crore had been withdrawn by the present applicant during the period between 13.7.2020 and 24.9.2020. The said amount had been distributed as per the instructions of the leader of the organized crime syndicate Jayesh Patel, including an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- being given to Dharmesh Ranpariya, brother of Jayesh Patel etc. According to the learned Public Prosecutor an amount of Rs.1,85,75,000/- had been paid to the present applicant by the secret witness No.1 of which the applicant had given Rs.80,00,000/- to co-accused Mukesh Abhangi, who had also passed it on as noted herein above. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the present applicant had collected extortion amount of Rs.1 crore from witness Ashvin Virani. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that an amount of Rs.2.60 crore had been collected by the applicant from secret witness No.19 as extortion amount, during the period between 30.8.2020 and 10.9.2020. 7.7. Based upon such material collected during the course of investigation, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the present applicant was clearly a member of organized crime syndicate and who was doing continuing unlawful activity for and on behalf of the syndicate and whereas under such circumstances, it is requested that this Court may not consider the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 8. Heard learned Sr. 8. Heard learned Sr. Advocates for the respective parties, who have not submitted anything further. 9. At this stage, before dealing with the factual submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the legal issues raised on behalf of the present applicants. 10. According to learned Sr. Advocates, the requirements for invoking offences punishable under the GUJCTOC Act are not fulfilled in case of the present applicants, more particularly since in case of none of the applicants more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more, within the preceding 10 years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. According to learned Sr. Advocates, while in case of the applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 and No.10768 of 2022, there are no FIRs filed against the said applicants herein before and whereas in case of applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 while an FIR had been filed against the said applicant in the year 2014, in the very year this Court, upon consent of the First Informant, had quashed the FIR. Resultantly, there are no chargesheets filed for a cognizable offence against the applicants in the preceding 10 years of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court. Thus, according to learned Sr. Advocates, since the primary requirements for invoking the Act not being fulfilled and the applicants not being engaged in continuing unlawful activity, the provisions of the Act could not have been invoked. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of law raised by the learned Sr. Advocates in the applications is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, in a pari materia section of the MCOCA Act, has laid down the law and paragraphs 77, 78, and 79 of the judgement, being relevant for the present purpose are quoted herein below for benefit:- “77. From the analysis above, the appellants’ submission that the allegation of engaging in illegal gambling would not sustain the invocation of the penal provisions of Section 3(2) MCOCA is simplistic. Although gambling may not, by itself, constitute an organized crime, it may be the route through which the accused are abetting the commission of organized crime. From the analysis above, the appellants’ submission that the allegation of engaging in illegal gambling would not sustain the invocation of the penal provisions of Section 3(2) MCOCA is simplistic. Although gambling may not, by itself, constitute an organized crime, it may be the route through which the accused are abetting the commission of organized crime. The question of whether the appellants are in fact abetting organized crime in this manner, is to be determined at the stage of trial. Similarly, the question of whether offences under the IPC would attract MCOCA in the present case is to be determined at the stage of trial and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The observation in Lalit Somdatta Nagpal (supra) that some degree of coercion or violence is required to charge an accused under provisions of MCOCA must be read together with Section 2(1)(e) which recognizes that “other unlawful means” may be used while committing organized crime, in addition to coercion and violence. 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. 78. In Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra,41 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. 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.” 79. Other courts, too, have held that persons who are alleged to be members of an organized crime syndicate need 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 fulfill the condition in Section 2(1)(d).” 11. The above quoted observation clinches the issue against the applicants, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court having laid down the 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 syndicate. As such, in view of the clear and unequivocal law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, nothing further is required to be discussed or analyzed on this issue. 12. Insofar as the submissions made by the learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant of Criminal Misc. As such, in view of the clear and unequivocal law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, nothing further is required to be discussed or analyzed on this issue. 12. Insofar as the submissions made by the learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021, more particularly relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditiya (supra) that since the right of accused to get default bail is intrinsically connected with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and further since it is a settled position that fundamental right cannot be waived, therefore, in spite of the applicant not having sought for the prayer for default bail in the present application, yet having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditiya (supra) and also since the facts of the said case are common to the applicant herein, as the applicants before the Hon’ble Apex Court were accused of the same FIR, on account of which the present applicant is incarcerated as of now, therefore, the applicant also ought to be released on default bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, so far as the proposition of law is concerned, since the same is relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same would undoubtedly be binding on this Court. But at the same time, the question which would be required to be answered is whether the proposition propounded by the applicant could be applicable in the facts of the present case and whether the same could be adjudicated by this Court. 12.1. In this regard, it would be relevant to observe that the present FIR was registered on 15.10.2020 and whereas the accused were arrested on different dates. Section 20(2) of GUJCTOC Act inter alia modifies Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as instead of “15 days” co-relatable to the maximum period of detention under Section 167(2) has been modified to “30 days” and “60 days” co-relatable with the period granted for completing investigation is to be considered as “90 days”. Section 20(2) of GUJCTOC Act inter alia modifies Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as instead of “15 days” co-relatable to the maximum period of detention under Section 167(2) has been modified to “30 days” and “60 days” co-relatable with the period granted for completing investigation is to be considered as “90 days”. Proviso to Section 20(2) inter alia envisages that Special Court shall extend period of 90 days up to 180 days on report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating progress of investigation, if the same is not completed within the period of 90 days and there is specific reason given for detention of accused beyond the said period of 90 days. 12.2. It appears that in case of the applicants before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which comprises of three different applicants, the Public Prosecutor had submitted reports requesting extending time up to 180 days and whereas the Special Court had allowed such applications, being aggrieved by which, the applicants therein had approached this Court by preferring the applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and whereas vide a common judgement dated 15.9.2021, learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the said applications. The said order had been carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. As against the same, the present is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying that the applicant herein may be enlarged on regular bail by this Court. 12.3. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be gainsaid that powers of this Court under Section 439 and Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are operating in two separate spheres. While Section 439 empowers the High Court or Sessions Court to release an accused in custody on bail, whereas Section 482 reiterates the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising powers under Section 439, this Court would examine the facts of the case from the perspective of whether the accused is to be retained in custody or he should be released on bail and whereas the considerations that should weigh with this Court while deciding such application have been set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgements, which are not reiterated or quoted here. Furthermore, it also requires to be observed that the applicants before the Hon’ble Apex Court had questioned decision of the Special Court to extend period for investigation and whereas the applicants therein had sought to be enlarged on default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the said aspect of default bail was never a subject matter of issue before this Court in the present set of applications and whereas further considering that this Court is exercising powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as against the vast powers available to this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court would not be inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Sr. Advocates for the applicants. It would also be required to be mentioned here that while the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court would be undoubtedly binding on this Court, but at the same time, in this group of applications, neither there is any reference to the order of the learned Special Court extending period for investigation, nor has such order been challenged and/or nor has any prayer for grant of default bail been made. As such, while this Court is conscious about the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that procedure is hand-maiden of justice and whereas it can also be appreciated that rules of procedure should not come in the way for ensuring that fundamental rights of a citizen are not trampled upon, but at the same time it also requires to be mentioned that in absence of the above noted challenge and furthermore, considering the limited jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 439, this Court deems it appropriate not to venture in the arena of whether the applicants herein would be entitled to default bail or not and whereas it is clarified, more particularly considering that liberty of a citizen is a valuable fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that it would be open for the applicants, if so advised, to file an appropriate application for appropriate relief before appropriate forum. 13. Now, this Court proposes to discuss the fact situation with regard to individual applicants. 14. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 is concerned, this Court has noted the following aspects:- 14.1. It appears that while the said applicant is stated to be in close contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate and whereas the applicant is alleged to have transferred an amount of Rs.2.10 crore to the organized crime syndicate, it does not appear that such money had been transferred by the applicant, after having earned the same by continuing unlawful activity; 14.2. It also appears that the Investigating Officer, except for the allegation that the applicant was in contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate, has not been able to gather any material, which would either show that the applicant had abetted the organized crime syndicate or was part of the organized crime syndicate or committing organized crime or committing continuing unlawful activity; 14.3. Insofar as the acts of the driver of the present applicant, on both the occasions namely with regard to purchasing a mobile phone and giving the same to co-accused Nilesh Tolia or with regard to the act of accompanying an employee of co-accused Nilesh Tolia in the car of the present applicant to collect some amount from co-accused Mukesh Abhangi that the said driver appears to have been acting also at the instance of co-accused Nilesh Tolia, more particularly it clearly appears that the present applicant or co-accused Nilesh Tolia were in good terms; 14.4. This Court is also inclined to consider the submission on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant was a victim of the organized crime syndicate, rather than the applicant being a member of the same. Such inclination on part of this Court, more particularly considering the statement of secret witness No.11, who has stated that one Sunil Changani had some issue with the present applicant with regard to a partnership and whereas the said Sunil Changani had involved the leader of the crime syndicate to pressurize the present applicant; 14.5. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 15. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, having examined the submissions of the learned Advocates and having perused the investigation papers as well as the material against the present applicant, that a case for interference so far as the present applicant is concerned has been made out, more particularly since the allegation and the material revealed during the investigation does not reveal any connection between the present applicant and the organized crime syndicate. 16. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 is concerned, this Court has noted the following aspects:- 16.1. It prima facie appears to this Court that the said applicant was a member of the organized crime syndicate actively engaged in continuing unlawful activity. From the investigation papers, it appears that the said applicant was in close contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate and whereas the said applicant had involved the leader of the crime syndicate to pressurize secret witness No.11. From the investigation papers, it appears that the said applicant was in close contact with the leader of the organized crime syndicate and whereas the said applicant had involved the leader of the crime syndicate to pressurize secret witness No.11. It also appears that the present applicant had been instrumental in the leader of the organized crime syndicate extorting approximately 50000 sq ft of land from two different developers. It also appears that for extorting the said land, 18 different sale deeds had been executed and whereas the purchasers were either creditors of the leader of the organized crime syndicate or the creditors of the present applicant or persons known to the present applicant; 16.2. It also appears that the co-accused one Anil Dangaria has received an amount of Rs.1,85,75,000/- as extorted amount from secret witness No.1, out of which the applicant had received an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and whereas the present applicant had given Rs.75,00,000/- to co-accused Nilesh Tolia. From these aspects, which are coming out from the investigation papers, it cannot be said that the present applicant had no connection with the organized crime syndicate, nor can it be said that the present applicant was not involved in the organized crime; 16.3. Section 2(1)(e) defines the term “organized crime”, which means in continuing unlawful activity, including extortion, land grabbing, economic offences, etc., by individuals, singly or jointly, as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or unlawful means. 16.4. It appears that the applicant as a member of the organized crime syndicate had involved the leader of the syndicate to threaten secret witness No.11 to settle with the applicant and whereas it also appears that later on the syndicate had extorted huge parcel of land from the said witness and others of which the present applicant appears to be the prime beneficiary as the extorted land along with the creditors of the leader of the syndicate also appears to have been transferred to various creditors and other persons known to the present applicant; 16.5. It also clearly appears that the present applicant had received benefits from the organized crime syndicate, more particularly the applicant having received a share of the extortion amount as noted herein above; 16.6. It also clearly appears that the present applicant had received benefits from the organized crime syndicate, more particularly the applicant having received a share of the extortion amount as noted herein above; 16.6. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the applicant would not be a fit case where this Court would deem it appropriate to exercise discretion and release the present applicant on regular bail. 17. Insofar as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 is concerned, this Court has noted the following aspects:- 17.1. It appears that the said applicant, though while working as an accountant of the leader of the organized crime syndicate, was also a close confidant of the said leader and was also involved in abetting the organized crime syndicate and whereas the applicant was also involved in continuing unlawful activity; 17.2. It appear from the investigation papers that from the land extorted from secret witness No.11, and another person, which would be approximately 50000 sq ft of land, father of the present applicant had purchased four plots of land and whereas for the total of 18 transactions, while the amount paid to the seller was Rs.1.50 crore whereas, according to the investigation, even the land purchased by the father of the applicant was itself worth Rs.1.14 crore; 17.3. It also appears that from the Rs.1.50 crore given to the seller of the property, an amount of Rs.72,00,000/- was returned back in cash, the same having been collected by the present applicant from secret witness No.11; 17.4. It also appears that the extortion money had been deposited with two Angadia Firms and whereas an amount of Rs.5.36 crore had been withdrawn by the present applicant from the said Angadia Firms between July and September 2020 and the same had been distributed as per the instructions of the leader of the organized crime syndicate; 17.5. It also appears that the present applicant had collected an amount of Rs.2.60 crore from secret witness No.19 as extortion amount between August and September 2020 and whereas the present applicant is also alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.1 crore as extortion money from one Ashvin Virani; 17.6. It also appears that the present applicant had collected an amount of Rs.2.60 crore from secret witness No.19 as extortion amount between August and September 2020 and whereas the present applicant is also alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.1 crore as extortion money from one Ashvin Virani; 17.6. Thus, on the whole, while it would appear that the present applicant may not have been engaged in the actual commission of an organized crime, but at the same time, it also clearly appears that the present applicant had been abetting the organized crime syndicate, more particularly from the acts noted herein above, as appearing from the investigation papers, it becomes clear that the present applicant was clearly a part of the organized crime syndicate. 18. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court would not be inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant and release the present applicant on regular bail. 19. Consequentially, the Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 is allowed. Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 are rejected. 20. The applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No.11202008202186 of 2020 registered with Jamnagar City “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on executing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) with one 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 prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] shall mark his presence once in every fortnight for a period of next 12 months at the concerned Police Station; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. And also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court. 21. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 24. Criminal Misc. Application No.15819 of 2021 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 25. Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Application No.10768 of 2022 are rejected. Rule is discharged in both the applications. 26. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No.13783 of 2021 for fixing date does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.