Mere criminal history not sufficient to attract organised crime offence under BNS: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that mere criminal antecedents of an accused would not be sufficient to attract the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [Tanmay v State of Madhya Pradesh]..Justice Ramkumar Choubey said the prosecution must prima facie establish a continuing unlawful activity, involvement of an organised crime syndicate or commission of the offence on behalf of such syndicate, together with the other essential requirements incorporated in Section 111. In the order passed on July 31, the Court observed that it has come across several matters where this penal provision was being invoked by the police without examination of foundational ingredients of the offence of organised crime.“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,” the Court said..It was dealing with the bail of an accused in a case of attempt to murder. The police invoked Section 111 against the accused after it was found that he has a criminal history of two cases. Two other accused were found to have criminal antecedents of ten and four cases each.Considering the material on record, the Court said the allegations did not disclose that the present case formed part of any “continuing unlawful activity”. It added that the alleged act in the present case was not committed by the accused persons as members of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of any syndicate. The Court also found that none of the offences previously registered against the co-accused were committed together by them. It further noted that superintendent of police’s approval for Section 111 did not disclose whether charge-sheets were submitted against the accused persons and the cognizance of the offence was taken against them. “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,” it added..Thus, the Court said addition of Section 111 of BNS at this stage appeared to be wholly unwarranted. On other aspects of the case, the Court noted that the complainant had turned hostile in the trial and a co-accused, alleged to have caused firearm injury, was granted bail.Therefore, the Court granted bail to the accused, who had been in custody since December 15, 2025. Advocate Ravinandan Dwivedi represented the accused.Panel Lawyer Ravindra Rajpoot appeared for State..[Read Order]