SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Vinay Baghla, S/o. Ashok Baghla – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1721 of 2025
Decided On : 18-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.R. Godara
For the Respondent: S.R. Choudhary

Invoking organized crime provisions requires objective foundational material establishing a structured criminal syndicate, a history of continuing unlawful activity, and the use of coercive methodology. Mechanical reliance on allegations or the existence of a plurality of offenders is insufficient, as these provisions demand a distinct threshold of proof.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 111 - Organized crime - Framing of charge - Requirement of prima facie evidence - Prosecution must demonstrate existence of organized crime syndicate and continuing unlawful activity - Legislative intent is to address structured, continuing, and organized enterprise for pecuniary benefit, rather than ordinary criminal acts involving a plurality of offenders. (Paras 6.1, 8.B, 9.2)

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of court to interfere with order framing charge - Impugned order suffers from non-application of judicial mind - Mandatory to examine statutory ingredients before framing charges - Failure to establish foundational requirements for organized crime offence justifies intervention to secure ends of justice. (Paras 5.2, 15.1)

(C) Organized Crime - Components - “Continuing unlawful activity” - Necessity of demonstrating repeated criminal enterprise and multiple charge sheets within preceding decade - Requirement of syndicate structure and coercive methodology - Isolated or spontaneous criminal transactions do not qualify as organized crime. (Paras 8.C, 11.2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was intercepted and found in possession of various banking instruments. Based on allegations of fraudulent transactions involving multiple individuals, the trial court framed charges for organized crime. The petitioner sought revision of the order, challenging the applicability of the stringent provisions to the alleged facts.

Findings of Court:
The material on record failed to disclose the existence of a structured syndicate, a pattern of recurring unlawful activity over time, or the required coercive methodology. The court noted that administrative or mechanical framing of charges without an independent examination of statutory ingredients is impermissible.

Issues: Whether the material collected during investigation sufficiently satisfied the mandatory statutory ingredients for charging the accused under organized crime provisions, and whether the trial court applied its judicial mind in framing such charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal framework governing organized crime requires objective foundational material, including proof of a permanent criminal structure and a history of continuing unlawful activity. As the prosecution failed to demonstrate these essential elements, the charges under the specialized provision were found to be legally unsustainable.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed; charges under organized crime provision quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual history and background of the case and fir registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. revisional jurisdiction and the judicial threshold for framing charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legislative intent and evolution of organized crime jurisprudence in india. (Para 7 , 8)
4. essential ingredients for section 111 bns: necessity of foundational material and distinction from ordinary crime. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. applying the legal framework: failure to prove organized syndicate or continuing unlawful activity in the instant case. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. evaluation of mechanical lower court orders and constitutional dangers of improper charge invocation. (Para 15 , 16)
7. quashing of organized crime charges and procedural order for trial by appropriate magistrate. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

Grievance-

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition under Section438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short “BNSS”) the petitioner assails the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 02, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 10/2025 (CIS No. 14/2025), titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Prashant Soni & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 111(2) (b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 317(5), 318(4) read with Section 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.(in short “BNS”)

2. Brief Facts of the Case

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2024 at about06:05 PM, Head Constable Kamlesh Kumar Meena (No. 81), along with Constable Rohitash (No. 1635) and other police personnel, left Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar on patrolling duty. At about 10:05 PM, near Dhingda Park, a reliable informer apprised the police party that one Vinay Baghla, son of Ashok Kumar Baghla, aged 25 years, resident of Gali No. 7, Chak 3E, Chhoti Police Jawaharpur, Sri Ganganagar, was proceeding from Multipurpose School towards the old office of the Irrigation Department carrying ATM cards, cheque books and other banking documents belonging to various persons, which were being used for withdrawal of cyber fraud amounts on behalf of Manish Soni and Prashant Soni. Acting upon the said credible information, the police party reached near the old Irrigation Department office at about 10:20 PM, where a young man carrying a dark-coloured bag was seen approaching. On noticing the police party, he attempted to flee but was apprehended, and on being asked, he disclosed his name as Vinay Baghla. Upon search conducted in the presence of Constable Rohitash (No. 1635) as witness, multiple banking documents were recovered from his possession, including passbooks, cheque books and ATM cards pertaining to accounts in the names of Ramesh (PNB Account No. 3959000100182266), Hansraj (IndusInd Bank Account No. 100230550396), Rukhsar Ansari (PNB Account No. 3959000100182406 and SBI Account No. 61189917936), and Vinay Baghla himself (Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No. 7949351699).

3.1 During interrogation, Vinay Baghla disclosed that all the aforesaid cheque books, bank accounts and ATM cards were being used for withdrawal of amounts obtained through cyber fraud transactions, and that the cash so withdrawn was being delivered on different dates to Manish Soni and his brother Prashant Soni at their residence at Guru Nagar, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, for which he was paid Rs.5,000/- per visit. He further disclosed that Manish Soni was engaged in buying and selling USDT cryptocurrency through BINANCE APP and was routing the proceeds through multiple bank accounts to circumvent the daily transaction limit; that the said bank accounts had been procured at Manish Soni's direction through various persons including Hansraj and Rukhsar Ansari. Cyber fraud complaints were found registered on the SAMANVAYA portal against the said bank accounts, reflecting fraudulent transactions including a complaint of Rs. 60,000/- against IndusInd Ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top