A Mumbai court has questioned the police’s move to invoke the organised crime provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against two suspects in a ₹ 11-crore extortion case, observing that it appeared to have been added at the last minute to prevent them from securing bail.
The court found that the police failed to furnish particulars establishing continuing unlawful activity by an organised crime syndicate, a prerequisite for invoking the provision. He also observed that the alleged threats were largely conveyed through intermediaries and that there was no direct demand for extortion money by the accused to the complainant. They have been directed to report to the police every Tuesday until the charge sheet is filed and not to contact or threaten witnesses.
Additional chief judicial magistrate Dattatray Shankarrao Khedekar, while granting bail to Daniel Steven and Ethel Steven, noted that the investigating officer added the organised crime provisions on October 13, after arguments on their bail applications had concluded. The two were arrested on September 1 after the complainant, Gagan Harish Sharma, head of business development at Diljay Property Developers Pvt Ltd, approached the police alleging that they were demanding money to allow redevelopment of a property in Bandra (West) to proceed without obstruction. The accused, along with their cousin Tony and other associates, initially demanded ₹ 7 crore and subsequently raised the demand to ₹ 30 crore, and allegedly threatened to obstruct the project and kill Sharma, according to the prosecution. The demand was later allegedly negotiated to ₹ 11 crore. Police arrested the two and another accused, Nazir Shaikh, during a trap on September 1, when they allegedly arrived to collect an instalment of ₹ 25 lakh. Finding that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court granted bail to both accused on a personal bond of ₹ 1 lakh each, with one or two sureties.
“The addition of section by referring the offence registered against the accused with different persons involved in the crime and without attributing role of accused for formation of continuing unlawful activity” did not prima facie establish organised crime, the court observed.
The judge noted that the complainant’s allegations and the amounts demanded varied across the accounts placed before the court.
“There is no direct demand of extortion amount by the accused persons to the informant,” the court observed, adding that evidence would have to establish whether the amount was a negotiated settlement arising from the property dispute or extortion to facilitate redevelopment.
