Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a bail order granted by the High Court of Gujarat to the respondent-accused under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015. The State of Gujarat challenged this order, arguing that the High Court misapplied the law regarding continuing unlawful activity. The respondent was arrested following an FIR registered on 27.11.2020, but the last offence against him occurred prior to the Act's enforcement on 01.12.2019. The High Court granted bail, relying on the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, which emphasized that previous FIRs do not constitute continuing unlawful activity unless there is a recent offence post-enactment. The Supreme Court analyzed the definitions within the 2015 Act, concluding that the absence of any FIR after the Act's promulgation meant that the respondent could not be prosecuted under its provisions. The court reiterated that the requirement of continuing unlawful activity necessitates recent unlawful conduct, thus affirming the High Court's decision to grant bail. The court also noted that the principles governing bail under the 2015 Act must consider the nature of the offences and the possibility of the accused committing further offences while on bail. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for substantive offences to invoke the Act's provisions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Continuing Unlawful Activity - Requirement of Separate FIR - Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, Section 2(1)(c) - The court held that the absence of a substantive offence after the promulgation of the Act precludes the invocation of its provisions against the accused, as the definition of continuing unlawful activity necessitates recent unlawful conduct. (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requirement of 'continuing unlawful activity' under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 necessitates a separate FIR registered against the accused after the Act's promulgation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent-accused, emphasizing that the absence of any FIR after the promulgation of the 2015 Act meant that the provisions of the Act could not be invoked against him.
Law Points
- continuing unlawful activity
- organized crime
- bail principles
- Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act
- 2015
