KERALA HIGH COURT
C.S. Dias, J.
Muhammad Rasheed – Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No.5927 of 2024
Decided on 13.8.2024
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 111(1)] – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail application – Organised Crime – Petitioner allegedly smuggled 964.5 grams of liquid gold into country, which was seized from his conscious possession – To attract offence under Section 111 (1) of 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 organized 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 preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence – No charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner in any court in last ten years – Prima facie, offence under Section 111(1) is not attracted – Besides, these are matters to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for last 40 days and recovery has been effected – Bail granted to petitioner.(Paras 17 and 18)
Result: Bail Application allowed.
ORDER
The collateral question that arises for consideration in this bail application is whether an offence of ‘organised crime’, defined under Section 111 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, can be attributed against an accused who has no criminal antecedents.
2. The 1st accused in Crime No.504/2024 of the Karipur Police Station, Malappuram, has filed the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. The factual substratum of the prosecution case is that the Detecting Officer received information that the accused 1 to 3 had hatched a conspiracy to commit an organised crime to smuggle gold into the Country. Accordingly, on 02.07.2024, at around 07:30 hours, when the 1st accused arrived at the Calicut International Airport, he was intercepted, and frisked. Then it was found 964.5 grams of liquid gold, having a value of Rs.68,00,000/-, was concealed in capsules in his body. The 1st accused was arrested on the spot. Subsequently, the accused 2 and 3 were also arrested. Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 111 (7) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’, for brevity).
4. Heard; Sri.Sarath K.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Pushpalatha M.K., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner zealously argued that to attract the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS, it is imperative that there should be more than one charge sheet filed against the accused before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years, and the Court has taken cognizance of such offence. In the case on hand, the above offence is not attracted because the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. In any given case, the petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2024, the investigation is complete, recovery has been effected, and the 2nd accused has been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session, Manjeri. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to parity and may be enlarged on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. She argued that the petitioner has committed a serious economic offence by smuggling contraband gold from abroad. Section 111(1) of BNS defines organised crime as any continuing unlawful activity, including economic offences. Explanation (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 specifically defines economic offence, which includes hawala transactions. The act committed by the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS and is punishable under subsection (7) of Section 111 of the BNS. There is no necessity for the accused to have criminal antecedents. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to intimidate the witnesses, tamper with the evidence and flee from justice. Moreover, the investigation is in progress. Nevertheless, she did not dispute the contention that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner within the preceding ten years as per the prescription under explanation (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS.
7. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner smuggled 964.5 grams of liquid gold into the country, which was seized from his conscious possession.
8. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 111 (1) of the BNS is not attracted against the petitioner primarily because no charge sheet has been filed against him before any competent Court to date.
9. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill 2023, aimed to modernise and transform the criminal justice delivery system in India, was passed by the Parliament and received the assent of the President on 25.12.2023. The provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Act 45 of 2023), except subsection (2) of Section 106, came into force on 1.07.2024. By virtue of Section 358 of the BNS, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands repealed. The BNS has introduced
State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and Ors.
Bail application – Organised Crime – To attract offence under Section 111 (1) of BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law....
The court established that organized crime under Section 111(1) of the BNS requires evidence of continuing unlawful activity and prior charge sheets, and the absence of such evidence negates the appl....
The absence of legally admissible evidence against the accused, particularly regarding organized crime, is crucial for granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court upheld the retrospective application of the B.N.S. provisions, confirming that prior charge sheets and cognizance taken are sufficient to establish cognizable offences under organized crime....
Insufficient evidence to connect petitioners to drug trafficking; financial transactions and co-accused statements inadmissible as evidence.
To classify offences under organised crime, there must be admissible evidence of unlawful activity, which the petitioners lacked, justifying the granting of pre-arrest bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.