[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurlal Singh Alias Lali vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17153) on 13 April, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:17153]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3450/2026
Gurlal Singh Alias Lali S/o Veer Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Joda, P.s. Sariyari, District Tarantaran- Punjab. (In Judicial
Custody At Sub-Jail Suratgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. HS Jodha, PP
Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar for the complainant
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
13/04/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
material available on record.
2. The instant application for bail has been filed under Section 483
BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R.
No.24/2026 dated 29.01.2026, registered at Police Station
Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections
308(4), 111(2)(b), 238 BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein it is alleged that
the petitioner demanded a ransom of Rs.2 crore over the phone. He
submits that the FIR invoked Sections 111(2)(b) of the BNS, however,
the said section 111 (1) explanation (ii) is attracted only in cases
involving continuing unlawful activity carried out by a person as a
member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf. It is argued
that, for the invocation of the said provision, it is a sine qua non that
more than one charge-sheet must have been filed against the accused
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:42:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17153] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3450/2026]
before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years, and
that such court must have taken cognizance of those offences, which
may also include economic offences. He further submits that in the
absence of the fulfillment of these mandatory preconditions, the
application of BNS Section 111 is legally unsustainable. The said section
i.e. BNS Section 111 (1) explanation (ii) is reproduced hereunder:-
"Organised crime.--
(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;
(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 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;"
He submits that, in the present case, no charge-sheet has been
filed against the petitioner before a competent court within the
preceding period of ten years, as is evident from the impugned order
dated 07.03.2026. He further submits that, as per the said impugned
order, only one case is pending against the petitioner, arising out of FIR
No. 17/26 registered at Police Station Raisingpur District Sriganganagar
for the offences under Sections 307 and 3(5) of the BNS, which was
lodged on 01.02.2026, i.e., after the registration of the FIR in the
present case, hence, it is contended that the mandatory precondition
for invoking the above stated provision is, therefore, not satisfied.
Consequently, the invocation of Section 111 is legally unsustainable,
and the petitioner has been falsely implicated, thus, the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:42:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17153] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3450/2026]
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application;
however, he is not in a position to refute the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner that no charge-sheet has been filed
against the petitioner before a competent court within the preceding
period of ten years. He also does not dispute the fact that only one case
is pending against the petitioner, arising out of FIR No. 17/26 registered
at Police Station Raisinghpur District Srignanganagar for the offences
under Sections 307 and 3(5) of the BNS, which was lodged on
01.02.2026, i.e., after the registration of the FIR in the present case,
that Section 111 cannot be invoked in these circumstances.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the present petitioners behind the bars for
further period till disposal of the case and also looking to the possibility
that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court deems it just
and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the
accused-petitioner namely Gurlal Singh Alias Lali S/o Veer Singh, in
relation to the F.I.R. No.24/2026 dated 29.01.2026, registered at Police
Station Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail;
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and
two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on all dates of
hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/20-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:42:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
