Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
OtherVinay Baghla & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
2026:RJ-JD:21961
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1721/2025
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 18 May 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 61(2)(b), 111, 317(5), 318(4); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 438, 442; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
Final Outcome
Revision partly allowed. The charges under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) and 111(6) BNS were quashed and the petitioners discharged of them; the remaining offences will proceed before the competent Magistrate (para 19).
Key holdings
- Section 111 BNS needs prima facie material of a syndicate, continuing unlawful activity and the accused’s nexus with it (paras 9, 17).
- A plurality of accused, or a cyber or financial fraud, does not by itself make out organised crime (paras 10, 14, 17).
- A repeat offender is not, for that reason alone, a member of an organised crime syndicate (para 15).
- The trial court must independently examine the statutory ingredients before framing a Section 111 charge (paras 15, 17).
- Once the Section 111 charges fall, the remaining offences go to the competent Magistrate (para 18).
Brief Facts
On 02.11.2024 a police patrol in Sri Ganganagar stopped the first petitioner, who allegedly carried passbooks, cheque books and ATM cards of third parties used to withdraw cyber-fraud money for two others (paras 3, 12). He allegedly said he earned Rs 5,000 a day and that the money was linked to USDT trading on the Binance app (para 12). On 04.11.2025 the trial court framed charges under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) and 111(6) of the BNS, besides cheating and conspiracy offences (paras 1, 17). The petitioners sought revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS (para 1).
Court's Findings
Section 111 is an extraordinary provision aimed at structured, continuing criminality, and its ingredients must be shown prima facie before a charge is framed (paras 9-11). Drawing on MCOCA case law, including Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma, Yakub Memon and the Bombay High Court's Hussain Umar Zulfikar Shaikh, the Court said a syndicate implies some hierarchy and continuity (para 11). Here the charge-sheet disclosed no syndicate structure, chain of command or network beyond the three accused, and no prior charge-sheets showing continuing unlawful activity (paras 12-13). A single interception on a single night pointed, at most, to cheating or conspiracy (paras 14, 17). The trial court framed the charges without examining these ingredients and even relied on an unrelated FIR against one petitioner that did not invoke Section 111 (para 15). Given punishment extending to life imprisonment and lasting stigma, mechanical use of Section 111 would normalise an extraordinary law for ordinary fraud (para 16).
Legal Principle
A charge of organised crime under Section 111 BNS requires prima facie material showing an organised crime syndicate, continuing unlawful activity and the accused's nexus with it. Several accused, or a cyber or financial fraud, are not enough by themselves; the trial court must examine these ingredients before framing the charge (paras 11-13, 15, 17).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294
Under MCOCA, membership of an organised crime syndicate and continuing unlawful activity (prior charge-sheets) are threshold requirements; the latter is jurisdictional for invoking the Act.
- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1
Discussed for proof of criminal conspiracy in the context of organised crime; the Court read it as requiring enterprise-level proof in Section 111 BNS cases.
- Hussain Umar Zulfikar Shaikh v. Competent Authority 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1870
An organised crime syndicate implies some hierarchy or structure; a purely ad hoc group of persons, though criminal, is not a syndicate.
