In an important ruling on the interpretation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that criminal antecedents alone are not enough to invoke the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the BNS. The Court observed that the prosecution must first establish the statutory ingredients of organised crime, including a continuing unlawful activity carried out by or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate.
Justice Ramkumar Choubey made the observations while allowing the second bail application filed by accused Tanmay in a criminal case registered in Burhanpur.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged after the complainant alleged that he and his friend were intercepted near Sagar Tower in Burhanpur on 20 November 2025. It was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and that a co-accused fired from a country-made pistol, causing a firearm injury. During the investigation, Section 111 of the BNS relating to organised crime was added along with other provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act.
The applicant argued that he was not armed and that the allegation of firing was specifically against a co-accused. He further submitted that after withdrawal of his first bail application, the complainant was examined before the trial court but did not support the prosecution's version and was declared hostile. The defence also questioned the addition of Section 111, contending that it had been invoked merely on the basis of criminal antecedents without satisfying the legal requirements of organised crime.
Court's Observation
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 111 of the BNS and compared it with similar provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GCTOCA). Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court explained that organised crime requires much more than multiple criminal cases against an accused.
The Court observed:
"Mere criminal antecedents of an accused are not, by themselves, sufficient to attract the offence of organized crime."
Justice Choubey noted that the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of a continuing unlawful activity, an organised crime syndicate and the other statutory ingredients prescribed under Section 111.
Examining the material placed before it, the Court found that the Superintendent of Police had primarily relied on previous criminal cases against the accused persons while permitting the addition of Section 111. However, the order did not demonstrate that the earlier cases fulfilled the statutory requirements, including multiple charge sheets and cognizance by a competent court in the manner contemplated by the provision.
The Court also remarked that after the BNS came into force, it had noticed Section 111 being invoked in several cases merely because accused persons had criminal antecedents, without examining whether the essential legal ingredients of organised crime were actually present.
Court's Decision
Apart from finding that the invocation of Section 111 appeared prima facie unwarranted, the Court also considered other circumstances favouring bail. It noted that the complainant had not supported the prosecution during trial, the co-accused allegedly responsible for the firearm injury had already been granted bail, and the applicant had remained in custody since 15 December 2025 while the trial was likely to take considerable time.
Allowing the application, the High Court directed that Tanmay be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to the statutory conditions under the BNSS.
Case Details
Case Title: Tanmay v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: M.Cr.C. No. 32864 of 2026
Judge: Justice Ramkumar Choubey
Decision Date: 31 July 2026
