The invocation of Section 111 of the BNS for 'organized crime' requires prima facie evidence of 'continuing unlawful activity' and an 'organized crime syndicate' as defined by statute; mere criminal antecedents are insufficient to attract this provision.

ORDER

1. This is the second application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail. The applicant is in judicial custody since 15.12.2025 in connection with Crime No.322/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 111(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Applicant’s first application for bail (M.Cr.C. No.10630/2026) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2026 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant, Sachin, lodged an FIR in the form of Dehati Nalishi on 22.11.2025 at about 2:00 p.m. at District Hospital, Burhanpur, alleging that on 20.11.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., while he along with his friend Vedant Bage had reached near Sagar Tower, Tempo Stand on a motorcycle, the present applicant along with co-accused Mujju @ Maya and Chetan intercepted them and started assaulting the complainant. It is further alleged that co- accused Chetan fired a shot from a country-made pistol, which hit the complainant on the left side of his abdomen, causing a firearm injury. The complainant was admitted to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No.322/2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, pursuant to an order dated 02.12.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Section 111 of the BNS was also added.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the applicant had no role in the commission of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution story itself, the firearm injury was caused by co-accused Chetan, whereas the present applicant was not armed with any weapon. It is further submitted that after dismissal of the first bail application, the complainant Sachin has been examined as PW-1 on 18.06.2026. In his deposition, the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile as stated nothing against the applicant. It is further argued that Section 111 of the BNS has been invoked without satisfying the statutory requirements contemplated thereunder. According to the applicant, the provision has been added merely on the basis of an office order issued by the Superintendent of Police without there being any material to prima facie establish the existence of the essential ingredients constituting the offence of organized crime. It is also submitted that co-accused Chetan Chandan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23737/2026. The applicant is in custody since 15.12.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application and submitted that the firearms used in the commission of the offence were procured from the present applicant, which prima facie connects him with the crime. It is also submitted that criminal antecedents of the applicant and co-accused persons show that they had committed more than one offence in preceding t