The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application for a petitioner charged with organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The court interpreted Section 111(1)(ii) which defines "continuing unlawful activity." It ruled that to attract an offense under this section, two or more individuals must engage in continuous unlawful activities resulting in multiple charge sheets within the past ten years.
The petitioner, the first accused, was arrested at Calicut International Airport for allegedly smuggling gold. The court considered the petitioner's argument that he lacked prior criminal records and that no charge sheet had been filed against him in the past ten years. The public prosecutor opposed the bail application, expressing concerns about witness intimidation.
The court's interpretation of Section 111(1) of BNS emphasizes the need for more than one charge sheet filed within ten years to constitute "continuing unlawful activity." The court referenced previous cases, State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others (2015) and State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta (2022), in its decision.
Because no charge sheet existed against the petitioner within the last ten years, the court deemed that Section 111(1) did not apply in this case. The bail application was granted, although the court clarified that potential guilt could still be investigated and proven during trial.
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii). On interpreting the provisions, the Court held thus:
“In view of the above discussion, to attract an offence under Section 111 (1) of the BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.”
The 1st accused is the petitioner who has approached the Court with a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was accused of committing an organised crime under Section 111(1) of the BNS punishable under Section 111 (7) with a minimum of 3 years imprisonment extending up to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
The allegation was that the petitioner along with other accused committed a serious economic offence by smuggling contraband gold from abroad. The petitioner was arrested at the Calicut International Airport and liquid gold capsules were found in his body.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that he cannot be made liable under Section 111(1) of the BNS since he has no criminal antecedents. He relied upon Section 111(1) (ii) to state that the petitioner was not liable because no charge sheet had been filed against him before any competent Court within the last ten years.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no necessity to have criminal antecedents and opposed the bail application stating that he might intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence.
Section 111 (1) (ii) reads thus: “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence;”
On interpreting the provisions and relying upon State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others (2015) and State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta (2022), the Court stated that the petitioner has not committed offences in the preceding period of ten years that would constitute as continuing unlawful activity.
The Court found that there is no dispute that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the last ten years and that prima facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted. However, the Court stated that these matters could be investigated and proved in trial while allowing the bail application.
As such, the Court allowed the bail application.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates S.Rajeev, V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., Prerith Philip Joseph, K.S.Kiran Krishnan, Nourin S. Fathima, K.K.Subeesh
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 5927 OF 2024
Click here to read/download OrderÂ
If you often open multiple tabs and struggle to keep track of them, Tabs Reminder is the solution you need. Tabs Reminder lets you set reminders for tabs so you can close them and get notified about them later. Never lose track of important tabs again with Tabs Reminder!
Try our Chrome extension today!
Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more