Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Mere criminal antecedents, by themselves, cannot automatically justify the invocation of Section 111 of the BNS unless the ingredients of the offence contemplated therein are otherwise fulfilled." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the invocation of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) pertaining to "organized crime" cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an accused's criminal antecedents without satisfying foundational statutory requirements.

A single bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey observed that the provision requires a continuing unlawful activity committed by an organized crime syndicate, and routine addition of the charge based on administrative circulars is wholly unwarranted.

The case arose from a First Information Report registered on 22nd November 2025 at District Hospital, Burhanpur, where the complainant alleged he was intercepted and assaulted by the applicant and co-accused, resulting in a firearm injury inflicted by co-accused Chetan. Subsequently, pursuant to an administrative order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Section 111 of the BNS was added to the charges. The applicant approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending that Section 111 had been wrongly invoked and that the injured complainant had already turned hostile during trial.

The primary questions before the court were whether Section 111 of the BNS could be invoked solely on the basis of past criminal antecedents without satisfying the statutory definitions of an organized crime syndicate. The court was also called upon to determine whether parity with co-accused who were granted bail and the subsequent turning hostile of the complainant warranted the grant of regular bail to the applicant.

Court Examines Scheme And Scope Of Section 111 BNS

The court extensively analyzed Section 111 of the BNS, noting that the provision defines organized crime, organized crime syndicate, and continuing unlawful activity. A plain reading makes it manifest that organized crime is not confined merely to the commission of a cognizable offence, but contemplates a continuing unlawful activity undertaken by a group acting in concert to obtain direct or indirect material benefits. The court noted that these expressions are pari materia with the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOCA).

"Continuing Unlawful Activity" Is A Mandatory Pre-requisite

Reviewing landmark precedents including the Supreme Court decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, the bench emphasized that registration of past cases alone is insufficient. There must be an activity prohibited by law, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and cognizance taken.

"The Supreme Court opined that there is a vast difference between the act or activity, which is being termed or called as an offence under a statute and such act or activity being taken into consideration as one of the requisites for taking action under the statute."

Superintendent of Police Order Lacked Statutory Basis

Evaluating the administrative order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Burhanpur, the court observed that permission to invoke Section 111 was granted mechanically. The order relied merely on the individual criminal histories of the co-accused without demonstrating that the crimes were committed jointly as an organized crime syndicate, or that cognizance of required charge-sheets had been properly taken by a competent court.

"The order proceeds substantially on the existence of mere criminal antecedents, without adverting to the statutory requirements incorporated in Section 111 of the BNS."

Frequent Misuse Of Section 111 BNS Noticed

Expressing deep concern over recurring trends in criminal jurisprudence under the new penal codes, the court noted that investigative agencies frequently invoke Section 111 of the BNS without examining foundational ingredients. The bench cautioned that administrative convenience or mere past criminality cannot override mandatory legislative safeguards.

"This Court has also noticed, in several matters arising after the enforcement of the BNS, that Section 111 has frequently been invoked without first examining whether the foundational ingredients constituting the offence of organized crime are prima facie satisfied."

Bail Granted On Merits And Complainant Turning Hostile

Taking into account that the injured complainant had been examined as PW-1 and had not supported the prosecution case, alongside the fact that co-accused Chetan had already been enlarged on bail and the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 15th December 2025, the court found a fit case for relief. The application was consequently allowed, directing the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to the conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2026