The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has clarified that the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, cannot be invoked unless there is a clear record of at least two prior charge sheets filed and taken cognisance of by a competent court within the preceding ten years. This ruling significantly narrows the scope of prosecution under this stringent provision and reinforces the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Aman Rana, was named as an accused in FIR No. 40 of 2025 registered at Police Station Gagret, Una, for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 308(4), 324(5), 351(2), 352, 62, and 111(2)(B) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Amrish Rana and Amit Mankotia, threatened drivers of a JCB and tipper truck at the bank of the River Swan on 15.4.2025, damaged their vehicles by tampering with engines and deflating tyres, and had previously extorted money from the owner of a stone crusher.
Procedural History
- 15.04.2025: Incident occurred at Swan River bank
- 16.04.2025: FIR registered against multiple accused including petitioner
- 26.08.2025: Charge sheet filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb
- Prior to filing: Petitioner had been acquitted in three earlier FIRs (Nos. 185/2014, 216/2015, 220/2015); one case (FIR No. 37/2025) remains pending
- 08.09.2025: Co-accused Amit Mankotia granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Una
- 27.10.2025: Co-accused Jagpal Singh Rana released on pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court
- Petitioner’s bail application: Dismissed by trial court on grounds of criminal antecedents
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, no prior charge sheet existed against him under BNS Section 111, and his custody served no investigative purpose. He undertook to comply with all bail conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be invoked against an accused who has never faced a charge sheet in the preceding ten years, even if the current allegations involve extortion and intimidation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta to argue that Section 111 of BNS requires two prior charge sheets with cognisance by a court within ten years to establish "continuing unlawful activity." Since no such record existed against the petitioner, the offence under Section 111 was not prima facie made out. He further contended that the petitioner’s prior acquittals demonstrated his willingness to face trial, and his detention served no investigative purpose.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the petitioner had a history of criminal conduct and had threatened the informant for ransom, indicating a pattern of organised crime. It argued that the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the gravity of the allegations justified continued custody. However, it failed to produce any evidence of prior charge sheets or cognisance against the petitioner within the statutory ten-year window.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and precedential analysis of Section 111(1) of the BNS, drawing direct parallels with analogous provisions in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GCTOCA). It emphasized that organised crime under Section 111 is not synonymous with continuing unlawful activity - the latter being merely one ingredient, not the entire offence.
"The very fact that more than one charge sheet had been filed against the respondents, alleging offences punishable with more than three years' imprisonment, is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, commission of offences before the enactment of MCOCA does not constitute an offence under MCOCA."
The Court held that the prosecution’s reliance on the petitioner’s alleged threats and past acquittals was insufficient to establish the statutory precondition of two prior charge sheets with cognisance. The absence of such records meant that Section 111(1) could not be prima facie attracted. The Court further noted that the prosecution’s claim of ransom threats was not even mentioned in the original FIR, rendering it an afterthought.
The Court also rejected the State’s apprehension of witness tampering or reoffending as speculative, noting that such fears could be mitigated through bail conditions. It underscored that criminal antecedents alone, without a prima facie case of a heinous offence, cannot justify pre-trial detention.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot be invoked unless at least two prior charge sheets for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more have been filed and taken cognisance of by a competent court within the preceding ten years. Since no such record existed against the petitioner, the charge under Section 111 was not sustainable. The petitioner was granted bail subject to strict conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Charge Sheets Are Mandatory for Section 111 BNS
- Practitioners must verify whether the prosecution has produced at least two charge sheets with court cognisance within the last ten years before contesting or defending a Section 111 charge
- Absence of such records renders the charge non-attractable at the bail stage, irrespective of the gravity of current allegations
- Investigating agencies must collect and preserve records of prior proceedings to substantiate organised crime claims
Criminal Antecedents Alone Cannot Deny Bail
- Acquittals in prior cases indicate a history of judicial scrutiny, not guilt
- Courts must distinguish between past arrests and proven criminal conduct
- Bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of prior FIRs or acquittals without a prima facie case of heinousness
Prima Facie Evidence Must Be Legally Admissible
- Allegations not recorded in the FIR cannot be used to retrospectively inflate charges
- Evidence must be legally admissible to establish the ingredients of organised crime
- Custodial interrogation cannot be used as a fishing expedition to manufacture evidence for Section 111
