Dismissed

Badrul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2025BAIL/25708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three bail applicants charged in a cyber fraud and organised crime case under Section 111 BNS argued the provision could not apply to first-time offenders and required prospective interpretation. The Court held Section 111 punishes mere syndicate membership without prior antecedents and found prima facie evidence of membership, rejecting all bail applications.

What the court decided

AI extract

Badrul vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(1) CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25708 of 2025

¶4

Badrul	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava : G.A.
(2) CRIMINAL MISC. BA	IL APPLICATION No. - 25623 of 2025
Angad Kumar	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

(3) CRIMINAL MISC. BA	IL APPLICATION No. - 25548 of 2025
Mohd. Shareekh	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 66

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

All the above referred bail applications involve identical questions of law and facts and arise from the same Case Crime Number. The Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25708 of 2025 is being treated as the leading bail

¶9

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶10

¶11

application and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.

¶12

Heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Shri Siddharth Srivastava and Ms. Somiya Shukla, learned counsels for the applicant, Shri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

¶13

The instant bail application (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25708 of 2025) under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111, 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of B haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 66-C, 66-D of Information Technology Act and under Section 3 Public Gambling Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Azamgarh. The first and second bail applications of the applicant in the Court below were rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Azamgarh vide order dated 13.5.2025 and 16.6.2025 respectively and the applicant is incarcerated in Jail since 10.4.2025.

¶14

Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Badrul submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior purposes. The FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number does not nominate the applicant. The FIR itself has been lodged after a delay of 04 months without there being any explanation of the delay occasioned. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion during the investigation. Recovery of one mobile phone has been made from the applicant while the recovery from other co-accused persons, a total of 12 mobile phones, 04 laptops, 02 laptop chargers, 05 mobile chargers and one mouse was made. The mobile number mentioned in the FIR is not associated with the applicant. It is argued that no offence under Section 318 (4), 319 (2), 111, 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 66-C, 66-D IT Act and under Section 3 Public Gambling Act is made out against the applicant. The charge sheet against the applicant and six other co-accused persons has already been filed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the

¶15

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶16

¶17

liberty of bail. Hence, prayer for bail has been made.

¶18

Per contra, Shri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant along with co-accused is involved in cyber fraud and has been found indulging in organized crime for obtaining monetary gains. Recoveries establishing the complicity in the crime has been found. Learned AGA has also invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which relates to organized crime to submit that the offence of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is clearly made out against the applicant and other co-accused persons as is borne out from the recovery memo on record. It is further submitted by Sri S.K.Rai, learned A.G.A. Ist, that the applicant is a member of a crime syndicate which is involved in continuing unlawful activity including Cyber Crime, gambling, online gaming etc for monetary gains. It is also argued that an accused indulging in continuing unlawful activity may not have only criminal antecedetns and may not be charge-sheeted in more than one case in which cognizance has been taken yet can be prosecuted under this section for indulging in organized crime.

¶19

Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, in rejoinder, submits that Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which relates to organized crime has been introduced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 w.e.f. 1.7.2024 and the provision is to be interpreted prospectively. The ingredients of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, shall not stand attracted against the applicant inasmuch as the phrase 'continuing unlawful activity' defined in the provision requires an accused to be charge sheeted in more than one case in the preceding 10 years and cognizance of the same has been taken by the competent Court. Since, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, there is no question of him being charge sheeted. Reliance has been placed upon the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others reported in 2015 (14) SCC 272 and upon the case of State of Gujarat vs. Sandeep Om Prakash Gupta, reported in 2022 SCC online 1727 .

¶20

In substance, the submission of Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior

¶21

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the applicant is that an offence of organized crime defined under Section 111 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, cannot be attributed against an accused, who has no criminal antecedents.

¶24

The Court now proceeds to consider the respective submissions. Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that ingredients of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not made out against the applicant and further that the provisions is required to be interpreted prospectively. On the other hand, Shri S. K. Rai, learned AGA has submitted that on a careful reading of the provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the requirements of the Section are clearly fulfilled and cognizable offence is made out against the applicant.

¶25

Before the Court proceeds to consider the respective submissions, it would be apposite to reproduce the Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:-

¶26

" Section 111. Organised crime.

¶27

(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.

¶28

Explanation.---For the purposes of this sub-section,---

¶29

(i)"organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity;

¶30

(ii) "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

¶31

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶32

¶33

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;

¶34

(iii) "economic offence" includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency-notes, bank-notes and Government stamps, hawala transaction, mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud several persons or doing any act in any manner with a view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any other institution or organisation for obtaining monetary benefits in any form.

¶35

(2) Whoever commits organised crime shall,---

¶36

(a) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees;

¶37

(b) in any other case, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

¶38

(3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime, or otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an organised crime, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

¶39

(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

¶40

(5) Whoever, intentionally, harbours or conceals any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime shall be punished with

¶41

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶42

¶43

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees:

¶44

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender.

¶45

(6) Whoever possesses any property derived or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than two lakh rupees.

¶46

(7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees."

¶47

So far as the prospective or retrospective operation of the provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is concerned, the issue cropped up before a Division Bench of this Court dealing with a bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 13813 of 2024 (Jitesh Jha and 4 others versus State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 21.9.2024; Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:154293DB. The Division Bench after considering all aspects of the matter concluded in Para 23 that the provisions would apply retrospectively. Relevant portion of the Para 23 is quoted hereunder:-

¶48

" 23. In view of the above analysis, this Court holds that for invoking Section 111 B.N.S., charge sheet filed and cognizance taken in two offences as mentioned in Explanation- (ii) to Section 111 B.N.S. within the preceding ten years will also include the period prior to the enforcement of B.N.S. Therefore, Explanation- (ii) to Section 111 B.N.S. would also apply retrospectively i.e. prior to the period of the enforcement of B.N.S."

¶49

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶50

¶51

Section 111 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in respect of organized crime is in essence analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act. The Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra versus Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others, reported in (2015) 14 Supreme Court Case 272 unequivocally held as follows:-

¶52

" 9. It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offences punishable under IPC and the Arms Act in Crimes Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 and once the trial court had recorded an acquittal even for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in MCOCA Crimes Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, all that remained incriminating was the filing of chargesheets against the respondents in the past and taking of cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of MCOCA. The filing of charge-sheets or taking of the cognizance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of MCOCA. That is because the involvement of the respondents in previous offences was just about one requirement but by no means the only requirement which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under MCOCA. What was equally, if not, more important was the commission of an offence by the respondents that would constitute "continuing unlawful activity". So long as that requirement failed, as was the position in the instant case, there was no question of convicting the respondents under Section 3 of MCOCA. That reasoning does not, in our opinion, suffer from any infirmity.

¶53

10. The very fact that more than one charge-sheets had been filed against the respondents alleging offences punishable with more than three years' imprisonment is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOCA does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOCA.Registration of cases, filing of charge-sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important

¶54

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶55

¶56

requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, seen in the light of the previous charge-sheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act.

¶57

11. In the case at hand, the offences which the respondents are alleged to have committed after the promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them. The acquittal of the respondents in Crimes Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the commission of the offences with which they were charged. Not only that the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act even in Crime Cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal had been filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had failed to prove the second ingredient required for completion of an offence under MCOCA. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous charge-sheets for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOCA. Such being the case, the High Court was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the trial court."

¶58

Then again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat versus Sandip Om Prakash Gupta (2022 SCC Online SC 1727) while interpreting the analogous provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 clarified the ratio of Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) by observing thus:-

¶59

" 52. It is a sound rule of construction that the substantive law should be construed strictly so as to give effect and protection to the substantive rights unless the statute otherwise intends. Strict construction is one which limits the application of the statute by the words used. According to Sutherland, 'strict construction refuses to extend the import of words used in a statute so as to embrace cases or acts which the words do not clearly describe'.

¶60

53. The rule as stated by Mahajan C.J. in Tolaram Relumal v. State of

¶61

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶62

¶63

Bombay reported in AIR 1954 SC 496, is that "if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature....." In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368, this Court held that it is a settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalised without a clear letter of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes. They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what might possibly have been intended. Instead, they are concerned with what has actually been said.

¶64

54. We are of the view and the same would be in tune with the dictum as laid in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) that there would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the 2015 Act came into force i.e., 01.12.2019 in respect of which, the accused is sought to be tried for the first time in the special court.

¶65

55. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Jaisingh (supra) that neither the definition of the term 'organised crime' nor of the term 'continuing unlawful activity' nor any other provision therein declares any activity performed prior to the enactment of the MCOCA to be an offence under the 1999 Act nor the provision relating to punishment relates to any offence prior to the date of enforcement of the 1999 Act, i.e., 24.02.1999. However, by referring to the expression 'preceding period of ten years' in Section 2(1)(d), which is a definition clause of the term 'continuing unlawful activity' inference is sought to be drawn that in fact, it takes into its ambit the acts done prior to the enforcement of the 1999 Act as being an offence under the 1999 Act. The same analogy will apply to the 2015 Act.

¶66

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶67

¶68

56. There is a vast difference between the act or activity, which is being termed or called as an offence under a statute and such act or activity being taken into consideration as one of the requisites for taking action under the statute. For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity. There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two chargesheets are found to have been lodged in relation to the offence punishable with three years' imprisonment during the period of ten years. Indisputably, the period of ten years may relate to the period prior to 01.12.2019 or thereafter. In other words, it provides that the activities, which were offences under the law in force at the relevant time and in respect of which two chargesheets have been filed and the Court has taken cognizance thereof, during the period of preceding ten years, then it will be considered as continuing unlawful activity on 01.12.2019 or thereafter. It nowhere by itself declares any activity to be an offence under the said 2015 Act prior to 01.12.2019. It also does not convert any activity done prior to 01.12.2019 to be an offence under the said 2015 Act. It merely considers two chargesheets in relation to the acts which were already declared as offences under the law in force to be one of the requisites for the purpose of identifying continuing unlawful activity and/or for the purpose of an action under the said 2015 Act.

¶69

57. If the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) is looked into closely along with other provisions of the Act, the same would indicate that the offence of 'organised crime' could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. We say so keeping in mind the following:

¶70

(a) If 'organised crime' was synonymous with 'continuing unlawful activity', two separate definitions were not necessary.

¶71

(b) The definitions themselves indicate that the ingredients of use of violence in such activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit are not included in the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity', but find place only in the definition of 'organised crime'.

¶72

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶73

¶74

(c) What is made punishable under Section 3 is 'organised crime' and not 'continuing unlawful activity'.

¶75

(d) If 'organised crime' were to refer to only more than one chargesheets filed, the classification of crime in Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) reply on the basis of consequence of resulting in death or otherwise would have been phrased differently, namely, by providing that 'if any one of such offence has resulted in the death', since continuing unlawful activity requires more than one offence. Reference to 'such offence' in Section 3(1) implies a specific act or omission.

¶76

(e) As held by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (supra) continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets is one of the ingredients of the offence of organised crime and the purpose thereof is to see the antecedents and not to convict, without proof of other facts which constitute the ingredients of Section 2(1)(e) and Section 3, which respectively define commission of offence of organised crime and prescribe punishment.

¶77

(f) There would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the Act came into force, in respect of which the accused is sought to be tried for the first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not been or is not being tried elsewhere).

¶78

(g) However, we need to clarify something important. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) dealt with the situation, where a person commits no unlawful activity after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such circumstances, the person cannot be arrested under the said Act on account of the offences committed by him before coming into force of the said Act, even if, he is found guilty of the same. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then, such person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then, he is

¶79

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶80

¶81

absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. But, if he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that the State has to wait till, he commits two acts of which cognizance is taken by the Court after coming into force. The same principle would apply, even in the case of the 2015 Act, with which we are concerned."

¶82

The Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita Bill, 2023 aimed to modernize 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 1.7.2024. By virtue of Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands repealed. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has introduced new offences including the offence of organized crime as defined under Section 111 (1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, quoted hereinbefore.

¶83

A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, reveals that Organized Crime means any continuing unlawful activity by a person or group of persons acting singly or jointly either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means with objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person. The provision further provides that whoever commits organized crime shall if it results in death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine not less than Rs.10 lacs and in any other cases, be punishable with imprisonment for not less than five years, extendable to life and fine not less than five lakh. It further provides that whoever conspires, attempts, abets or knowingly facilitates organized crime shall be punishable with imprisonment for not less than five years, extendable to life and fine not less than Rs. five lacs. The provision further provides that whoever is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for not less than five years, extendable to life and fine not less than five lacs and whoever holds property derived from organized crime shall be punishable with imprisonment for not less than three years, extendable to life and fine not

¶84

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶85

¶86

less than Rs.2 lakh.

¶87

In the opinion of the Court, Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 dealing with organized Crime criminalizes membership of an organized crime syndicate and commission of organized crime and thus, even mere membership of such a syndicate can attract liability under this provision. Regards may be had to sub Section 4 of Section 111 BNS in this regard. It does not require any proof of prior criminal antecedents as a condition precedent. The entire focus is on the conduct i.e. whether the accused has committed an organized crime or is a member of an organized crime syndicate. A person even with no prior criminal record or a first time offender may still be prosecuted if there is evidence that such person participated in organized crime activities or is a part of such a syndicate.

¶88

In the opinion of the Court, organized crime under Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries a different connotation as under the MACOCA (Maharasthra Control or Organized Crime Act, 1999) or the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 and has a wider legislative intent to punish even first time offenders, if they are part of a crime syndicate.

¶89

The above view stands fortified from an observation made by the Apex Court in a recent case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 (20) SCC 408 wherein para 87 and 88 the Apex Court made the observations as under:

¶90

"87. The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.

¶91

88. In Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra 2009 SCC OnLine Bom

¶92

770 , a two-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, speaking through Justice Ranjana Desai (as the learned judge then was) held that:

¶93

"37. … Section 2(1)(d) which defines 'continuing unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge-sheet have to be filed … It is the membership of organized crime syndicate which

¶94

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶95

¶96

makes a person liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from section 3(4) of the MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate. The link with the 'organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term 'continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in."

¶97

Conclusion

¶98

In the above conspectus, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 do not stand attracted to the case of the applicants as they are all first time offenders and have no criminal antecedents.

¶99

As held above, the provisions of Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would apply to a person accused to have committed an organized crime even with no prior criminal record. The only requirement is that the prosecution must establish active membership or participation in an organized crime syndicate.

¶100

There is ample evidence against the applicants which prima facie, establishes that the applicants are members of a crime syndicate which

¶101

BAIL No. 25708 of 2025

¶102

¶103

indulges in unlawful online gambling and unlawful online gaming, etc., for monetary gains through WhatsApp groups.

¶104

Considering all the above, this Court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶105

The aforesaid bail applications are accordingly, rejected .

¶106