Criminal Antecedents Alone Can't Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Unless Ingredients Are Met: MP High Court
While granting bail to an accused, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere criminal antecedents are insufficient to invoke the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), unless the statutory ingredients of the provision are prima facie established. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 307]Remarking that the provision has "frequently been invoked" without...
While granting bail to an accused, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere criminal antecedents are insufficient to invoke the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), unless the statutory ingredients of the provision are prima facie established. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 307]
Remarking that the provision has "frequently been invoked" without examining whether the foundation ingredients are prima facie satisfied, the bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey clarified:
"In many such cases, the provision has been added merely because the accused persons have criminal antecedents. However, 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".
A second application has been filed seeking bail, contending that the applicant has been in judicial custody since December 15, 2025, for organising crime (Section 111), attempt to murder (Section 109), and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115) of BNS with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Per the prosecution, the complainant had lodged an FIR alleging that while the complainant was with his friend, the applicant, along with 2 co-accused, intercepted them and started assaulting the complainant. The complainant alleged that the co accused had fired a shot from a country-made pistol, which hit the complainant in his abdomen, causing a firearm injury.
The counsel for the applicant argued that he had no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It was claimed that the firearm injury was caused by the co-accused, whereas the applicant was not armed with any weapon. The complainant argued that Section 111 of BNS for organizing crime has been invoked without satisfying the statutory requirement contemplated thereunder.
The counsel for the applicant contended that the Superintendent of Police has invoked Section 111 of BNS without there being any prima facie material to establish the same.
The counsel for the State argued that the criminal antecedents of the applicant and co-accused persons show that they have committed more than one offence in the preceding 10 years and thus the provisions of Section 111 of BNS are attracted.
Even presuming the allegations of the prosecution are true, the court noted that the allegations do not show that their actions were part of "continuing unlawful activity" within the meaning of the section. Further, it was noted that the alleged acts were not committed by the applicant or co-accused persons as members of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. The bench further noted:
"The order proceeds substantially on the existence of mere criminal antecedents, without adverting to the statutory requirements incorporated in Section 111 of the BNS. Thus, it is clear that none of the offence of “organised crime” was committed by the applicant and co-accused persons after coming into force of Section 111 of BNS w.e.f. 01.07.2024".
The court, examining the evidence on record, noted that none of the essential ingredients of Section 111 of BNS is 'prima facie' made out against the applicant and therefore addition of Section 111 of BNS was "wholly unwarranted".
Therefore, the bench allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant.
Case Title: Tanmay v State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C.No.32864/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 307
For Applicant: Advocate Ravinandan Dwivedi
For State: Advocate Ravindra Rajpoot