The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an accused person’s criminal record alone cannot be used as the basis for invoking the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court emphasised that investigators must first establish the legal ingredients necessary to attract the provision.
Hearing a bail plea in an attempted murder case, Justice Ramkumar Choubey observed that prosecutors are required to demonstrate, at least prima facie, the existence of a continuing unlawful activity, the involvement of an organised crime syndicate, or the commission of an offence on behalf of such a syndicate.
The Court noted that it had encountered several cases in which Section 111 was invoked without examining whether the essential requirements of the law were actually satisfied. According to the Bench, the mere existence of previous criminal cases against an accused cannot automatically justify the application of organised crime provisions.
The case concerned an accused against whom police had added Section 111 after discovering his involvement in two earlier cases. Two co-accused were found to have criminal histories involving ten and four cases, respectively.
After examining the record, the Court found no indication that the alleged offence formed part of any continuing unlawful activity. It further held that there was nothing to suggest that the accused persons acted as members of an organised crime syndicate or carried out the offence on behalf of one.
The Bench also pointed out that the earlier offences registered against the co-accused had not been committed jointly. In addition, the approval granted by the Superintendent of Police for invoking Section 111 did not specify whether charge sheets had been filed in the previous cases or whether courts had taken cognisance of those offences.
The order granting approval, the Court observed, relied primarily on the accused persons’ criminal antecedents while overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 111. It further noted that no act amounting to organised crime, as defined under the provision introduced on July 1, 2024, had been established against the accused or the co-accused.
Consequently, the Court held that the addition of the organised crime charge appeared unjustified at this stage of the proceedings.
The Bench also took into account other circumstances favouring the accused, including the fact that the complainant had turned hostile during trial and that another accused, who was allegedly responsible for the firearm injury, had already secured bail.
Considering these factors, the Court granted bail to the applicant, who had remained in custody since December 15, 2025.
