Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent-accused, Sandip Omprakash Gupta, who was charged under Sections 3(1)(i) and (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (the 2015 Act). The FIR was registered on 27.11.2020, and the accused was arrested the same day. The Sessions Court rejected his bail application, but the High Court granted bail on 06.05.2021, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (2015) 14 SCC 272. The High Court noted that the 2015 Act came into force on 01.12.2019, and no FIR had been registered against the accused after that date. The last offence registered against him was in 2019, with a charge-sheet filed on 21.01.2019, prior to the Act's promulgation. The High Court held that the requirement of 'continuing unlawful activity' under Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act was not satisfied, as the accused had not committed any offence after the Act came into force. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, considered the question of whether 'continuing unlawful activity' necessarily requires a separate FIR after the Act's promulgation. The Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, stating that the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' requires both the filing of more than one charge-sheet within the preceding ten years and the commission of an organised crime after the Act's promulgation. Since the accused had no FIR registered after 01.12.2019, the ingredient of 'continuing unlawful activity' was not satisfied. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming the High Court's order granting bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Continuing Unlawful Activity - Requirement of Post-Promulgation Offence - Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, Section 2(1)(c) - The definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' requires that more than one charge-sheets have been filed within the preceding ten years and that the accused has committed an organised crime after the Act came into force. Mere filing of charge-sheets prior to the Act is insufficient. The court held that the prosecution must prove that the accused committed an offence after the promulgation of the Act to satisfy the ingredient of 'continuing unlawful activity' (Paras 3-4, 9-10). B) Criminal Law - Bail - Consideration under Special Statutes - Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, Section 3 - While granting bail, the High Court must consider whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie made out. In this case, the High Court granted bail on the ground that no FIR was registered after the Act came into force, which was upheld by the Supreme Court as a valid consideration (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requirement of 'continuing unlawful activity' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 necessarily requires a separate FIR to have been registered against any purported member of a gang after the promulgation of the 2015 Act i.e., after 01.12.2019?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Continuing unlawful activity requires commission of an offence after promulgation of the special Act
- Filing of charge-sheets prior to enactment does not by itself constitute an offence under the special Act
- Prospective application of special statutes
