The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has clarified that invoking Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for organised crime requires more than mere allegations or past criminal history - it demands at least two prior charge sheets filed and taken cognisance of within the preceding ten years. In granting bail to a petitioner with multiple past cases, the Court emphasized that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify pre-trial detention without a prima facie case of heinousness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amrish Rana, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 40 of 2025 registered at Police Station Gagret, Una, for allegedly threatening JCB and tipper drivers on 15.04.2025. The allegations include deflating tyres, introducing a substance into engines, and brandishing a "darat" (a traditional weapon) to extort compliance. The police added charges under Sections 126(2), 308(4), 324(5), 351(2), 352, 62, 111(2)(b), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The most serious addition was Section 111(1) of BNS, which criminalises organised crime.
Procedural History
- 15.04.2025: Alleged incident occurs at Swan River, Una
- 16.04.2025: FIR registered against petitioner and co-accused
- 26.08.2025: Charge sheet filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb
- Prior to arrest: Petitioner had been involved in nine prior criminal cases (2000 - 2006), with acquittals in three and one compromise
- 08.09.2025: Co-accused Amit Mankotia granted bail by Sessions Judge, Una
- 27.10.2025: Co-accused Jagpal Singh Rana granted pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court
- Petitioner’s bail application: Dismissed by Sessions Judge on grounds of criminal antecedents
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that the allegations do not constitute a heinous offence, no weapon was recovered, no injury was caused, and Section 111 of BNS was improperly invoked due to absence of prior charge sheets. He emphasized his roots in Una, recent fatherhood, and no history of absconding.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be invoked against an accused without at least two prior charge sheets filed and taken cognisance of by a competent court within the preceding ten years, and whether criminal antecedents alone justify denial of bail in the absence of a prima facie case of heinousness.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Ms. Sheetal Vyas argued that Section 111 of BNS requires a continuing unlawful activity by a syndicate, evidenced by multiple charge sheets within ten years. No such charge sheet existed against the petitioner in the last decade. She cited Avinash v. State of Karnataka and Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala to show that mere allegations or past arrests are insufficient. She further contended that the offences under Sections 308(4), 324(5), and 351(2) are non-heinous, and custody was no longer required after charge sheet filing.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal contended that the petitioner had a history of criminal conduct and had previously threatened the informant for ransom. He argued that the petitioner’s past convictions and the nature of the threat warranted continued custody to prevent witness intimidation and recurrence of similar offences. He relied on the status report alleging a pattern of extortion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous statutory interpretation of Section 111(1) of BNS, drawing parallels with analogous provisions in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GCTOCA). It held that the provision is penal in nature and must be strictly construed.
"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 relied on State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta to affirm that organised crime under BNS requires a distinct act committed after the enactment of the law, supported by prior charge sheets as evidence of a continuing pattern. The absence of any charge sheet against the petitioner in the last ten years rendered Section 111(1) inapplicable.
The Court further held that while criminal antecedents are relevant, they cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Pinki v. State of U.P., Prahlad Singh Bhati, and Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar mandates a balanced assessment of the nature of the accusation, likelihood of absconding, and risk to witnesses. Here, the charge sheet had already been filed, recovery was complete, and the petitioner had never absconded in prior cases. The Court dismissed the State’s apprehension of witness tampering as speculative, noting that conditions could mitigate such risks.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 111 of BNS cannot be invoked without two prior charge sheets taken cognisance of within ten years, and that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail where no prima facie heinousness is established. The petitioner was granted regular bail subject to strict conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Charge Sheets Are Mandatory for Section 111 BNS
- Practitioners must verify whether at least two charge sheets for cognizable offences punishable with three+ years imprisonment were filed and taken cognisance of within the preceding ten years
- Allegations of past conduct without formal charge sheets cannot sustain an organised crime charge under BNS
- Prosecution must establish a distinct act of organised crime post-enactment of BNS, not merely rely on historical cases
Criminal Antecedents Do Not Automatically Deny Bail
- Courts must distinguish between past convictions and prima facie involvement in the current heinous offence
- Acquittals in prior cases weaken the State’s argument of habitual criminality
- Bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of criminal history; the nature of the current accusation must be heinous and supported by credible evidence
Conditions Can Mitigate Bail Risks
- Courts may impose conditions on communication, movement, and witness contact to address concerns of intimidation or absconding
- Electronic monitoring via mobile and social media contact is now a viable alternative to custody
- Prosecution retains right to seek cancellation if conditions are violated
