Mere Allegation Of Cyber Fraud Involving Multiple Accused Cannot Be Mechanically Elevated Into Organised Crime U/S 111 BNS: Rajasthan High Court

The Court observed that the provision was intended to address structured, continuing and institutionalised organised criminal enterprises, and not isolated or standalone criminal incidents involving multiple accused persons.

The Court held that the requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” under Section 111 BNS constitutes the heart of the statutory framework and necessarily requires prior charge-sheets, judicial cognisance, continuity of criminal conduct and existence of an organised crime syndicate functioning through sustained and coordinated unlawful operations.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, framing charges against the petitioners 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 connection with allegations relating to cyber fraud proceeds, cryptocurrency transactions and use of multiple bank accounts for routing allegedly fraudulent amounts.

A Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed: “The invocation of Section 111 BNS in the present case represents an impermissible expansion of an extraordinary penal provision beyond the limits intended by Parliament. Section 111 BNS was enacted to combat structured, continuing, and institutionalised forms of organised criminality, and not to mechanically elevate every instance of alleged financial or cyber fraud involving more than one accused into the domain of organised crime prosecution.”

The Court further observed: “In the absence of foundational material disclosing the existence of a continuing organised criminal enterprise, the framing of charges under Section 111 BNS cannot legally be sustained.”

Advocate S.R. Godara appeared for the Petitioners; S.R. Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.

Background

According to the prosecution, a police patrol team at Sri Ganganagar received information that the accused Vinay Baghla was carrying ATM cards, cheque books and banking documents relating to various persons, allegedly for withdrawal of amounts obtained through cyber fraud on behalf of co-accused persons.

The police apprehended the appellant near the old office of the Irrigation Department and allegedly recovered multiple ATM cards, passbooks and cheque books relating to various bank accounts. During interrogation, the accused allegedly disclosed that the accounts and banking instruments were being used to withdraw amounts from cyber fraud and that he was paid money for delivering cash to the co-accused persons.

The prosecution further alleged that one of the co-accused persons was engaged in buying and selling USDT cryptocurrency through the Binance application and that fraudulent proceeds were being routed through multiple bank accounts to avoid daily transaction limits. The investigation also referred to complaints registered on the SAMANVAYA portal regarding allegedly fraudulent transactions in some of the bank accounts.

Based on these allegations, an FIR came to be registered. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the trial court framed charges under various provisions of the BNS, including Section 111 dealing with organised crime. Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons approached the High Court by way of a revision petition.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court extensively examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction exercisable against orders framing charges under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court observed that although revisional jurisdiction at the stage of charge is limited and does not permit detailed appreciation of evidence, the revisional court nevertheless remains duty-bound to prevent miscarriage of justice where charges are framed mechanically, without examining whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed.

The Court observed: “The Court cannot act as a mere post office of the prosecution and mechanically reproduce the allegations contained in the charge-sheet without examining whether the foundational statutory ingredients constituting the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed from the material placed on record.”

The Court further held that the order framing charge cannot be reduced to a “ritualistic endorsement” of the prosecution's case and that judicial scrutiny at the threshold stage acts as a safeguard against arbitrary prosecution.

The Bench thereafter undertook a detailed examination of the legislative scheme, object and jurisprudential evolution of Section 111 BNS dealing with organised crime.

The Court noted that before the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, organised crime jurisprudence in India was largely confined to special State enactments such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000.

The Court observed that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had been fundamentally designed around the concept of individual criminal liability and lacked a dedicated framework for dealing with organised criminal enterprises operating through continuing unlawful activities and coordinated syndicate structures.

The Court further observed that though the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, addressed terrorism and anti-national activities, it was not enacted to function as a general organised crime legislation in cases lacking nexus with terrorism or secessionist activity.

Justice Farjand Ali observed: “Section 111 of the BNS thus represents a conscious and deliberate legislative shift, a paradigmatic departure from the framework of individuated criminal liability under the general penal law towards the prosecution of structured criminal enterprises operating through continuing unlawful activities for pecuniary or other material advantage.”

The Court thereafter reproduced and analysed Section 111 BNS in detail and held that every component of the provision carries substantive legal significance.

While interpreting the expression “organised crime syndicate”, the Court held that the mere participation of multiple persons in a criminal act does not automatically constitute an organised crime syndicate.

The Court observed that ordinary criminal law already contains concepts such as common intention, criminal conspiracy, abetment and unlawful assembly for addressing crimes involving a plurality of offenders. Section 111 BNS, therefore, cannot be transformed into a residuary provision applicable to every offence involving more than one accused.

The Court observed: “The provision under consideration is not intended to operate as a mere enlarged substitute for conventional principles of joint criminal liability already embedded within the penal framework. Rather, it has been enacted to combat a qualitatively distinct category of criminality, namely, structured, continuous, and organised criminal enterprises operating with a degree of systemic coordination, continuity, and pecuniary motivation transcending isolated or episodic offences.”

The Court laid particular emphasis on the phrase “continuing unlawful activity” appearing in Explanation (ii) to Section 111 BNS and described it as the “most jurisprudentially significant and most frequently misunderstood element” of the provision.

The Court explained that Section 111 requires the existence of more than one charge-sheet filed within the preceding ten years in respect of cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, coupled with cognisance taken by a competent court.

The Court observed that these requirements are not incidental or procedural in nature, but constitute foundational jurisdictional thresholds intended to ensure that isolated criminal incidents are not transformed into organised crime prosecutions.

The Bench observed: “The Legislature has consciously employed the expression ‘more than one charge-sheets,’ thereby unmistakably indicating that a solitary criminal case or isolated FIR can never, by itself, satisfy the statutory threshold. Previous instances of criminal activity are therefore not incidental but foundational to the very existence of the offence.”

The Court further held: “The expression ‘continuing’ thus cannot be treated as a mere adjectival embellishment. It is the heart of the statutory architecture. The provision contemplates continuity not merely in time, but continuity of organised criminal conduct manifested through repeated criminal activity, prior charge-sheets, judicial cognizance, syndicate nexus, and persistence of unlawful operations.”

The Court illustrated that even where multiple persons jointly commit serious offences such as murder, extortion or kidnapping, the same would not automatically amount to organised crime unless the statutory ingredients regarding continuity, syndicate functioning and prior prosecutorial history are satisfied.

Applying these principles to the present case, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to place any material showing the existence of prior charge-sheets, continuity of organised criminal activity, or operation of a pre-existing organised crime syndicate within the meaning of Section 111 BNS.

The Court found that the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted at face value, at best disclosed allegations of cyber fraud and financial irregularities involving multiple persons, but did not satisfy the statutory thresholds necessary for the invocation of organised crime provisions.

The Court observed that indiscriminate or expansive application of Section 111 BNS would obliterate the carefully maintained distinction between ordinary criminal liability and organised crime jurisprudence.

The Bench cautioned that extraordinary penal provisions carrying severe punishments and stigmatic consequences must be interpreted strictly and cannot be invoked mechanically in ordinary criminal disputes merely because the allegations involve multiple accused persons or financial transactions.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court held that the prosecution had failed to disclose the essential foundational ingredients required for the invocation of Section 111 BNS and that the charges framed under the organised crime provision could not legally be sustained.

The Court accordingly allowed the revision petition and quashed the charges framed against the petitioners under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) and 111(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while leaving the remaining charges under other provisions open for continuation in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Vinay Baghla & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:21961)

Click here to read/download Judgment