As per case facts, the Appellant was accused in an FIR under the GCTOC Act and IPC sections for involvement in an organized crime syndicate, intimidation, land-grabbing, and extortion. It ... was alleged that he threatened a victim to cancel a land deal or pay a sum, and was involved in collecting extorted money. While he had prior FIRs, it was contended that the sections did not indicate his involvement in organized crime. The State argued his close association with the main accused, facilitation of meetings, and direct involvement in extortion, with witnesses' statements proving his role. Out of six co-accused on bail, five were on default bail. The question arose whether the appellant should be granted bail, considering his alleged role in organized crime and the specific stipulations of the GCTOC Act. Finally, the Supreme Court was not inclined to grant bail to the Appellant at this juncture, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion guided by law. However, it observed that upon the completion of recording statements of protected witnesses, the Appellant is at liberty to renew his plea for bail. The appeal was disposed of with this liberty.