Trial Courts Must Be Cautious While Granting Permission To IO For Invoking Charges On Organised Crime U/S 111 BNS Against Accused: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that trial courts are required to be more cautious while permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

For context Section 111 of BNS pertains to Organised crime (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.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Whenever such an application/requisition is filed by the Investigation Officer, the Courts are required to apply their mind and thereafter pass necessary orders. The application/requisition of the Investigation Officer seeking permission of the Court to invoke Section 111 of BNS, 2023, shall be accompanied with necessary documents/materials which would prima-facie show the necessity to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and it is only after considering such material along with the application/requisition, the concerned Court can consider his request to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023.”

The court held thus while hearing a petition filed by one Avinash who was charged under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023 and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, who had sought regular bail.

The petitioner had argued that he has no other criminal antecedents. Except for the petitioner, till date, no other accused has been arrested in the present case. In spite of that, the Investigation Officer has filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 which was mechanically allowed by the Trial Judge without application of mind.

Further, the chargesheet was supposed to be filed within 60 days which is not filed thus he is entitled for statutory bail.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying during the course of interrogation, the statement of one Hazarat Ali Malhakatti was recorded and based on the same, enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner and on 06.01.2025 he was arrested and further investigation of the case is under progress.

Findings:

The bench noted that the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the aforesaid offences is imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Undisputedly, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and except the petitioner, no other accused has been arrested in the present case.

During the course of interrogation of the said Hazarat Ali Malhakatti on 21.11.2024, he had stated that he had asked his friend Avinash (petitioner) to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000, from his account using his ATM card and accordingly, Avinash had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his bank account using his ATM card. Except the aforesaid allegation, there is no other allegation as against the petitioner.

Referring to Section 187 BNSS the court said “For the offences for which FIR has been filed in the present case, if the investigation is not completed and final report is not filed within a period of sixty days, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.”

During the hearing the court had directed the prosecutor to produce the material collected by the Investigation Officer, which persuaded him to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4).

In response the investigating officer filed an affidavit wherein, he stated that there is a possibility of accused No.2 being involved in other crime, hence they have included Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023.

Then the court said “Perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court would go to show that a requisition was filed by the Investigation Officer to invoke Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 much prior to the arrest of the petitioner.On 07.12.2024 and the Trial Court without application of mind has allowed the said application on the same day. As on the said date, Investigation Officer had not arrested any accused persons and absolutely there was no material before him so as to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023.”

It emphasised that an offence under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 is punishable with life imprisonment and therefore, statute provides ninety days time to complete the investigation and file a final report.

The court held “In the present case, chargesheet was required to be filed within sixty days from the date of arrest of the accused. However since the Trial Court has permitted the Investigation Officer to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023, the time to complete investigation and submit final report, automatically gets extended and thereby, the precious right guaranteed to an accused under Section 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 is infringed and his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also curtailed.”

It added “Addl. SPP has fairly submitted that the chargesheet is not filed and at this stage there is no material collected by the Investigation Officer, so as to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.”

Allowing the petition the court granted bail on the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000, with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

Further, it directed the Registrar General to circulate the order to all the Presiding Officers of the District Judiciary, for information and compliance.

Appearance: Advocate Vachan Gowda for Petitioner.

Additional SPP Pushpalatha a/w HCGP Vinay Mahadevaiah for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109

Case Title: Avinash AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 893 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order