JUDGMENT : DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-11208044202185 of 2020 registered with the Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot City of the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(1), 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4) and 4 of the GUJCTOC Act and Sections 447, 386, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120(B) of the IPC. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 12.12.2020 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the first information report came to be filed against total eleven persons wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya further submits that the main accused, namely, Ejaz @ Akbarbhai @ Hukubha Khiyani, having graver role than the present applicant-accused, has already been enlarged on bail by this very Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant-accused is entitled to be released on bail. It is also submitted that at the time of invoking the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act against the applicant-accused, the investigator has put reliance upon total twelve offences which have been mentioned in the charge-sheet papers in a tabular form. It is submitted that the offence at Serial No. 1 was registered in the year 2012 wherein the applicant-accused has not been named; the second offence was registered in the year 2015 showing the applicant-accused as accused No. 2; third offence is again in the year 2012 not naming the applicant-accused; fourth offence was registered in the year 2018 wherein the applicant-accused has been shown as accused No. 3 and from serial Nos.5 to 12, the name of the applicant-accused is not there in all those offences. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya would submit that, out of the twelve offences, relied upon by the prosecuting agency, two offences were registered before the enactment of the GUJCTOC Act and in other offences, the applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya would submit that, out of the twelve offences, relied upon by the prosecuting agency, two offences were registered before the enactment of the GUJCTOC Act and in other offences, the applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has further submitted that subsequently in the affidavit filed by the Investigator at the time of opposing the bail application before the trial court, two more offences have been shown against the applicant-accused registered in the years 2020, however, at that time, the applicant-accused was in judicial custody. The aforesaid two offences subsequently relied upon by the investigator has not been mentioned in the chart shown in the charge-sheet papers. It is further submitted that all the offences cited by the investigator in the charge-sheet papers were before the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act and that too either in the nature of personal offence or family dispute, which has been used as a tool to book the present applicant-accused under the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya has submitted that another co-accused of the same FIR, namely, Rizwan Ismail Dal has also been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the offences relied upon by the prosecuting agency against him are all before the enactment of the GUJCTOC Act. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Toliya for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. 4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP submits that the leader of the gang, namely, Ejaz Tako happens to be the maternal uncle of the present applicant-accused and the said gang is indulged in doing illegal activities like extortion of money, land grabbing, contract killing and economical offences etc. and they are doing the said illegal activities since long. Number of cases have been registered against the members of the said syndicate. It is further submitted that all the accused persons are in constant touch with each other. and they are doing the said illegal activities since long. Number of cases have been registered against the members of the said syndicate. It is further submitted that all the accused persons are in constant touch with each other. For the sake of argument, assuming for a moment, that the complaint is registered against ten persons and out of those ten persons, if some of the members are indulged into continuing unlawful activity and they fall under the definition of the continuing unlawful activity and not a single first information report filed against rest of the accused persons after the promulgation of the Act, but during the course of investigation, some incriminating material showing the nexus between the members of the organized crime syndicate is found out, in that event, the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act can also be invoked against those accused persons as an abettor as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act and despite the said fact no FIR has been filed against them after promulgation of the Act. 5. Learned APP has heavily relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2022 and submitted that so far as the controversy involved in the present case, the aforesaid judgment will hold the field. Learned APP refers to the provisions of Section 2(1) (a) of the GUJCTOC Act and submits that so far as the act of ‘abet’ is concerned, any facilitation of commission of organized crime would amount to abetting the offence of organized crime. Learned APP further submits that one may be a principal offender and remaining persons of the syndicate would be the members of the syndicate but if some offence is committed by any accused person and someone has merely conspired and has committed some act of a nature of conspiracy then that section will be attracted. Learned APP further submits that thereafter the gravity of the offence also need to be seen while dealing with the application of bail. Learned APP further submits that when the Court examines the term ‘continuing unlawful activity’ there has to be more than one offence where the cognizance has been taken. Learned APP further submits that thereafter the gravity of the offence also need to be seen while dealing with the application of bail. Learned APP further submits that when the Court examines the term ‘continuing unlawful activity’ there has to be more than one offence where the cognizance has been taken. Learned APP further submits that say for example if there are 10 members in an organized crime syndicate and one is the leader of the syndicate and others are the members then it is not prerequisite that against all the 10 members there has to be more than one offence requires to be registered and wherein cognizance is being taken by the competent Court. Learned APP has, at this juncture, relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 77 and 78 in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra) and submitted that in the aforesaid case, it has been specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, 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. 6. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred decision, simply on the basis of non-registration of the FIR or less number of cases registered against some of the members of the syndicate after or before the promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act, those persons cannot be absolved from the clutches of the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, considering the above stated factual aspects, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 7. The present application has also been opposed by learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara appearing for the original complainant and submitted that the applicant-accused had granted respite in the form of temporary bail, however, he jumped the temporary bail and during that period, he has committed those two offences for which FIRs came to be filed which were subsequently relied upon by the investigator at the time of opposing the bail application before the trial court. It is further submitted that not only that the applicant-accused himself did not surrender before the jail authority but he was arrested by the police after a period of nine months and again sent to the judicial custody. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant-accused is also required to be seen in the present case. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. 9. Before adverting to the rival submissions, I would like to refer to the relevant provisions of the GUJCTOC Act. Sections 2(1)(a) provides as under: “(a) “abet” with its grammatical variations and cognate expression, includes: (i) the communication or association with any person with the actual knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is engaged in assisting in any manner an organised crime syndicate. (ii) the passing on or publication of without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist the organised crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of, any document or matter obtained from the organised crime syndicate. (iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate for committing an offence under this Act.” 10. Sections 2(1)(c) provides as under: “(c) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a 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.” 11. Sections 2(1)(e) provides as under: “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.” 12. Section 2(1)(f) provides as under: “(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.” 13. Section 3(1)(ii) reads as under; “In any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extent to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.” 14. Now coming to the case on hand, it is found out from the record that there are in all twelve offences have been cited by the investigator against the applicant-accused to book him under the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act, out of which according to the learned advocate for the applicant, only one offence has been registered after the promulgation of the Act wherein also the name of the applicant-accused has not been mentioned. Be that as it may, there are two more offences relied upon by the investigator while opposing the bail application filed by the applicant before the trial court which have been registered in the year 2020, i.e. after the promulgation of the Act. It has also come on record that the applicant-accused had been granted temporary bail, however, he did not surrender and jumped the temporary bail and during that absconding period, he has committed the said two offences which have been resulted in filing of the FIR. Therefore, it seems that the applicant-accused is a headstrong person having criminal mind set and thus there are all possible chances that he would again indulge in such kind of criminal activities if released on bail and may again, along with his fellow members of the syndicate, create hustle and bustle in the City. Therefore, it seems that the applicant-accused is a headstrong person having criminal mind set and thus there are all possible chances that he would again indulge in such kind of criminal activities if released on bail and may again, along with his fellow members of the syndicate, create hustle and bustle in the City. The applicant-accused happens to be the nephew of the leader of the gang, namely, Ejaz Tako and has been continuously indulged in the illegal activities as a member of the organized crime syndicate. Apart from that, there are statements of the secret witnesses recorded by the investigator indicating the involvement and the mens rea on the part of applicant-accused in the commission of the offences as an active member of the organized crime syndicate headed by him along with his maternal uncle. Therefore, considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the present applicant-accused this Court, at this stage, is unable to convince itself that the applicant-accused is not connected with any ‘continuing unlawful activity’ of the organized crime syndicate. 15. At this stage, I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs. CBI through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 , wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while considering an application for regular bail, the Courts shall have to take into consideration, the following aspects: “(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further, observed in Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus: “10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted. 16. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted. 16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.” 17. It is found out from the record that prima facie, the applicant is involved in the commission of crime. Thus, without going into further merits of the matter, looking to the nature of the offence and severity of punishment and prima facie involvement of the applicant accused, the present application deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected. 18. It is needless to say that the aforesaid observations are tentative in nature for deciding present application only and they shall not come in the way of the applicant accused at the time of trial. Rule is discharged.