Preceding 10-Year Period For Charge Sheets Mandatory To Invoke 'Organized Crime' Under Section 111 BNS: J&K High Court Grants Bail

"Denying the concession of bail to the petitioner in a case of present nature may not be a proper exercise of discretion... as the same would militate against the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is exception'," High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling, held that the mere invocation of serious charges like 'Organized Crime' under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not create a statutory bar against the grant of bail.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that for an offence to qualify as 'continued unlawful activity' under Section 111 of the BNS, more than one charge sheet must have been filed against the accused within the preceding ten years.

The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Anantnag, alleging that the petitioner, Mohammad Iqbal Wani, along with co-accused, defrauded a complainant of Rs. 56 lakhs under the pretext of selling "wild garlic." The investigating agency alleged that the accused operated an organized criminal syndicate, floating multiple firms to defraud innocent investors. Consequently, the police invoked Section 111 of the BNS (Organized Crime) alongside charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being charged with 'Organized Crime,' which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The court also examined whether the criteria for "continued unlawful activity" under Section 111 of the BNS were prima facie satisfied when one of the previous charge sheets against the accused dated back more than 20 years.

Court Explains Statutory Requirements For Organized Crime Under BNS

The court meticulously analyzed the definition of "organized crime" as provided under Section 111 of the BNS. It noted that the prosecution relied on two previous charge sheets to justify the invocation of this section. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that under Explanation-II to Section 111(1), "continued unlawful activity" is only established if more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years.

Past Charge Sheets Filed 20 Years Ago Cannot Be Basis For Section 111 BNS

The bench observed that while one charge sheet was filed in 2023, the other arose from an FIR in 2005, with the charge sheet filed over 20 years ago. The court found merit in the contention that such a stale record does not meet the statutory requirement of the "preceding ten years." It noted that this legal infirmity creates a prima facie case for bail, as the core ingredients of the organized crime charge appeared to be missing.

"The ingredients of offence under Section 111 of BNS are not made out against the petitioner... Prima facie, the aforesaid contention appears to be full of merit."

Economic Offences Not An Absolute Bar To Grant Of Bail

Addressing the prosecution's argument that the petitioner was involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude involving a "criminal syndicate," the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI. It reiterated that all economic offences cannot be categorized into one group to deny bail. The court emphasized that the gravity of the offence must be balanced against the period of sentence and the attending circumstances of the case.

Court Reaffirms 'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Principle

Justice Dhar highlighted that even though the charges framed are grave, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence remains that bail is the rule. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, the court remarked that the petitioner had already spent eight months in custody and the investigation concerning his specific role was complete.

"Merely because the petitioner has been charged for an offence which carries maximum punishment upto life imprisonment, he cannot be denied the concession bail, particularly when the chargesheet stands produced against him."

Further Investigation Against Co-Accused No Ground To Detain Petitioner

The court rejected the respondent's plea that bail should be denied because further investigation was still ongoing. The bench clarified that since the investigation regarding the petitioner's role was finished and the charge sheet had been filed, the continued probe into the involvement of other persons could not serve as a legitimate ground to deprive the petitioner of his liberty.

Allowing the bail application, the court directed the petitioner's release subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lakh and two sureties. The court imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on leaving the Union Territory of J&K without permission and a mandate to appear before the trial court on every hearing date. The bench concluded that the trial was already underway and pre-trial detention should not be converted into a form of punishment.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026