JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J All the petitions have been filed for seeking regular bail in the same FIR, hence, these are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested in connection with FIR number 107 of 2024, dated 14 th August 2024, registered with Police Station Sadar Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioners are innocent, and they have nothing to do with the commission of a crime. They were arrayed as accused based on the financial transaction with the main accused. The police have completed the investigation, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petitions. 3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 13 th August 2024. Secret information was received on 14 th August 2024 at about 12:05 am that two persons staying in room number 101 of the Hotel Himachal, had a huge quantity of narcotics. The Police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory OfÏcer. The Police went to room number 101 with two independent persons. Suraj and Rohit Pandey were found in the room. The police searched the room and recovered one polythene packet containing 6.380 grams of heroin and a digital weighing machine. The Police seized the heroin and the Digital weighing machine. The police arrested the occupants of the room. Suraj and Rohit Pandey disclosed during the investigation that the heroin was made available to them by Sandeep Shah. Sandeep Shah used to send the location and direct them to keep the heroin in those locations. They would drop the heroin and send the location to Sandeep Shah via WhatsApp. The police checked the call detail records and the bank account statements. The police found that Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore and Aastik Chauhan were in contact with Rohit Pandey and Suraj. They had transferred a huge amount to Sandeep Shah’s bank account. Police arrested Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore, Aastik Chauhan, Sandeep Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The police found during the investigation that Sandeep Shah was dealing in narcotics. The police found that Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore and Aastik Chauhan were in contact with Rohit Pandey and Suraj. They had transferred a huge amount to Sandeep Shah’s bank account. Police arrested Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore, Aastik Chauhan, Sandeep Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The police found during the investigation that Sandeep Shah was dealing in narcotics. FIR number 108/2022 and FIR number 190/21 were registered against him. Many persons, including the present petitioners, had transferred the money to the accounts of Sandeep Shah, Arpita Shah, and Neeraj Kashyap. The petitioners are members of an organised crime syndicate which is involved in drug trafÏcking. The petitioner, Anshul Rana, had transferred Rs.6,57,300 to the account of Sandeep Shah, and an amount of Rs.1,62,000 was deposited in his account by various persons. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Anuj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Anshul Rana, Mr Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Prajwal Justa, Mr Ashwani Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner Aayan Chauhan, Mr M.S. Katoch Advocate for the petitioners Abhinav Verma and Sanjay Verma and Mr Lokender Kutlehria and Mr Jitender Sharma learned Additional Advocate General, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioners. The police are relying upon the statements made by the co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. The financial transactions are also not sufÏcient to implicate the petitioners. The ingredients of Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) are not satisfied in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. He relied upon State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727, Muhammed Rasheed vs. State of Kerala 2024:Ker:61510, Suraj Singh @ Noni vs State of Punjab 2024:PHHC:127296 and Shubham Sharma vs. State of HP 2025:HHC:6136 in support of his submission. M/s Gaurav Sharma, Ashwani Dhiman and M.S. Katoch, Advocates adopted these submissions. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners are members of an organised crime syndicate who are involved in drug trafÏcking. There is sufÏcient material on record to connect them with a commission of crime. The nature of crime is heinous and punishable with life imprisonment. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners are members of an organised crime syndicate who are involved in drug trafÏcking. There is sufÏcient material on record to connect them with a commission of crime. The nature of crime is heinous and punishable with life imprisonment. The narcotics are adversely affecting the younger generation. The petitioners would indulge in the commission of the crime in case of their release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria and Mr. Ajit Sharma adopted these submissions. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P ., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The petitioners were arrested based on the statements made by the accused and the deposit of money by them in the account of Sandeep Shah, Arpita Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was also held that the confession made by the co-accused is inadmissible because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed at page 568:- 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police ofÏcer. A confession that is made to a police ofÏcer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police ofÏcer. A confession that is made to a police ofÏcer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47 ] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 13. Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence OfÏcer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to a police ofÏcer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioners. 14. A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, and it was held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufÏcient to deny bail to a person. 15. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 21 1 that where the police have no material except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. 15. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 21 1 that where the police have no material except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed:- “ [16] In the facts of the instant case also the prosecution, for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of coaccused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the existence of a prime facie case against the petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. [17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufÏcient to hold a prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his favour. [18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1 Further, on the basis of the aforesaid elucidation, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 16. A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023, 17. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused, as the same does not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence. 18. The police have relied upon the deposit of money in the accounts of Sandeep Shah, Arpita Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused, as the same does not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence. 18. The police have relied upon the deposit of money in the accounts of Sandeep Shah, Arpita Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The status report does not show that any heroin was recovered from these persons. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Amal E vs State of Kerala 2023:KER:39393 that financial transactions are not sufÏcient to connect the accused with the commission of a crime. It was observed: “From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the documents indicate the monetary transactions between the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the question that arises is whether the said transactions were in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the confession statements of the accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufÏcient to record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner.” 19. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufÏcient material to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime. 20. The police have also added Section 111 of BNS. It reads as under: “ 111. Organised Crime. “(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafÏcking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafÏcking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized 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 organized crime. Explanation. Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section,— (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; (iii) “economic offence” includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency-notes, bank-notes and Government stamps, hawala transaction, mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud several persons or doing any act in any manner with a view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any other institution organization for obtaining monetary benefits in any form. (2) Whoever commits organised crime shall— (a) If such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees; (b) In any other case, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime, or otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an organised crime, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (5) Whoever, intentionally, harbours or conceals any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees: Provided that this sub-Section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender. (6) Whoever possesses any property derived or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than two lakh rupees. (7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organized crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees”. 21. It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section that a person should indulge in a specified activity either singly or jointly as a member of an organised crime syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a Court within the preceding period of ten years and the Court has taken cognisance of such offence. 22. This Section was explained by the Karnataka High Court in Avinash vs. State of Karnataka (11.03.2025 - KARHC): MANU/KA/0938/2025 as under: 1. The primary intent behind introducing Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates. 22. This Section was explained by the Karnataka High Court in Avinash vs. State of Karnataka (11.03.2025 - KARHC): MANU/KA/0938/2025 as under: 1. The primary intent behind introducing Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there are certain basic parameters and if only it is found that the accused comes within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as follows: (a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed; (b) accused should be a member of an organised crime syndicate; (c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such a syndicate. (d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, and the Court before which the chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognisance of such offence and including economic offence. (e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means. 23. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5260 that where no charge sheet was filed against the accused in the preceding ten years, he cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 111 of the BNS Act. It was observed: “10. Section 111 (1) explicitly stipulates that to attract the offence, there should be a continuing unlawful activity, by any person or group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. The material ingredient to attract the above provision, so far as the present case is concerned, is that there should have been a continuing unlawful activity committed by a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. 11. Explanation (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of BNS define an organised crime syndicate and a continuing unlawful activity, respectively. 12. 11. Explanation (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of BNS define an organised crime syndicate and a continuing unlawful activity, respectively. 12. Continuing unlawful activity under explanation (ii) of Section 111(1) of the BNS 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-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such an offence. Furthermore, an organised crime syndicate under Explanation (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS 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. 13. While interpreting the analogous provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, which mandates the existence of at least two charge sheets in respect of a specified offence in the preceding ten years, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane [(2015) 14 SCC 272] has unequivocally held as follows: “9. It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offence punishable under the IPC and Arms Act in Crimes No. 37 and 38 of 2001 and once the Trial Court had recorded an acquittal even for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in MCOCA Crimes No. 1 and 2 of 2002 all that remained incriminating was the filing of charge sheets against the respondents in the past and taking of cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of the MCOCA. The filing of charge sheets or taking of the cognisance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That is because the involvement of respondents in previous offences was just about one requirement, but by no means the only requirement, which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under MCOCA. That is because the involvement of respondents in previous offences was just about one requirement, but by no means the only requirement, which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under MCOCA. What was equally, if not more important, was the commission of an offence by the respondents that would constitute “continuing unlawful activity”. So long as that requirement failed, as was the position in the instant case, there was no question of convicting the respondents under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That reasoning does not, in our opinion, suffer from any infirmity. 10. The very fact that more than one charge sheet had been filed against the respondents, alleging offences punishable with more than three years' imprisonment, is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, commission of offences before the enactment of MCOCA does not constitute an offence under MCOCA. Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognisance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. Only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA, he may, seen in the light of the previous charge sheets and the cognisance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act. 11. In the case at hand, the offences which the respondents are alleged to have committed after the promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them. The acquittal of the respondents in Crimes Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the commission of the offences with which they were charged. Not only that the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act, even in Crimes Case Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal had been filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had failed to prove the second ingredient required for completion of an offence under MCOCA. Not only that the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act, even in Crimes Case Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal had been filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had failed to prove the second ingredient required for completion of an offence under MCOCA. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of the MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous charge sheets for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOCA . Such being the case, the High Court was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court”. 14. Subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727] , while interpreting the analogous provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, clarified the ratio in Shivaji alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) by observing thus: “52. It is a sound rule of construction that the substantive law should be construed strictly so as to give effect and protection to the substantive rights unless the statute otherwise intends. Strict construction is one which limits the application of the statute by the words used. According to Sutherland, ‘strict construction refuses to extend the import of words used in a statute so as to embrace cases or acts which the words do not clearly describe’. 53. The rule as stated by Mahajan C.J. in Tolaram Relumalv. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 961: AIR 1954 SC 496 , is that “if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature.” In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368 , this Court held that it is a settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalised without a clear reading of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes. They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what might possibly have been intended. Instead, they are concerned with what has actually been said. 54. We are of the view and the same would be in tune with the dictum as laid in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) that there would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the 2015 Act came into force i.e., 01.12.2019 in respect of which, the accused is sought to be tried for the first time in the special court. 55. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Jaisingh (supra) that neither the definition of the term ‘organised crime’ nor of the term ‘continuing unlawful activity’ nor any other provision therein declares any activity performed prior to the enactment of the MCOCA to be an offence under the 1999 Act nor the provision relating to punishment relates to any offence prior to the date of enforcement of the 1999 Act, i.e., 24.02.1999. However, by referring to the expression ‘preceding period of ten years' in Section 2(1) (d), which is a definition clause of the term ‘continuing unlawful activity’ inference is sought to be drawn that in fact, it takes into its ambit the acts done prior to the enforcement of the 1999 Act as being an offence under the 1999 Act. The same analogy will apply to the 2015 Act. 56. There is a vast difference between the act or activity, which is being termed or called an offence under a statute and such act or activity being taken into consideration as one of the requisites for taking action under the statute. For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity. There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two charge sheets are found to have been lodged in relation to the offence punishable with three years' imprisonment during the period of ten years. For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity. There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two charge sheets are found to have been lodged in relation to the offence punishable with three years' imprisonment during the period of ten years. Indisputably, the period of ten years may relate to the period prior to 01.12.2019 or thereafter. In other words, it provides that the activities, which were offences under the law in force at the relevant time and in respect of which two chargesheets have been filed and the Court has taken cognizance thereof, during the period of preceding ten years, then it will be considered as continuing unlawful activity on 01.12.2019 or thereafter. It nowhere by itself declares any activity to be an offence under the said 2015 Act prior to 01.12.2019. It also does not convert any activity done prior to 01.12.2019 to be an offence under the said 2015 Act. It merely considers two chargesheets in relation to the acts which were already declared as offences under the law in force to be one of the requisites for the purpose of identifying continuing unlawful activity and/or for the purpose of an action under the said 2015 Act. 57. If the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) is looked into closely along with other provisions of the Act, the same would indicate that the offence of ‘organised crime’ could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. We say so, keeping in mind the following: (a) If ‘organised crime’ was synonymous with ‘continuing unlawful activity’, two separate definitions were not necessary. (b) The definitions themselves indicate that the ingredients of the use of violence in such activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit are not included in the definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’, but find place only in the definition of ‘organised crime’. (c) What is made punishable under Section 3 is ‘organised crime’ and not ‘continuing unlawful activity’. (b) The definitions themselves indicate that the ingredients of the use of violence in such activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit are not included in the definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’, but find place only in the definition of ‘organised crime’. (c) What is made punishable under Section 3 is ‘organised crime’ and not ‘continuing unlawful activity’. (d) If ‘organised crime’ were to refer to only more than one chargesheets filed, the classification of crime in Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1) (ii) resply on the basis of consequence of resulting in death or otherwise would have been phrased differently, namely, by providing that ‘if any one of such offence has resulted in the death’, since continuing unlawful activity requires more than one offence. Reference to ‘such offence’ in Section 3(1) implies a specific act or omission. (e) As held by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (supra) continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets is one of the ingredients of the offence of organised crime and the purpose thereof is to see the antecedents and not to convict, without proof of other facts which constitute the ingredients of Section 2(1)(e) and Section 3, which respectively define commission of offence of organised crime and prescribe punishment. (f) There would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the Act came into force, in respect of which the accused is sought to be tried for the first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not been or is not being tried elsewhere). (g) However, we need to clarify something important. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) dealt with the situation where a person commits no unlawful activity after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such circumstances, the person cannot be arrested under the said Act on account of the offences committed by him before the coming into force of the said Act, even if he is found guilty of the same. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then such a person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then he is absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then such a person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then he is absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. But, if he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that the State has to wait till he commits two acts of which cognisance is taken by the Court after coming into force. The same principle would apply, even in the case of the 2015 Act, with which we are concerned. 58. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the dictum as laid by this Court in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) does not require any relook. The dictum in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) is the correct exposition of law”. 16. Section 111 (1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in essence, analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Control Act and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act. The legal principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its interpretation of organised crime as defined by the above two state legislations are applicable on all fours to Section 111 (1) of the BNS. Thus, it is not necessary to have a further interpretation of the above analogous provision. 17. In view of the above discussion, to attract an o under Section 111 (1) of the BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful 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-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such an offence. 18. In the present case, it is undisputed that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in any court in the last ten years. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 111(1) is not attracted. Nevertheless, these are matters to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial. 18. In the present case, it is undisputed that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in any court in the last ten years. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 111(1) is not attracted. Nevertheless, these are matters to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial. Additionally, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 57 days, and recovery has been effected. 24. This judgment was followed in Pesala Sivashankar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5422, wherein it was held: “8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane 2015 SCC OnLine SC 648 was dealing with the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC) Act and the offence of organised crime under the said act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of the MCOCA Act, that he may be seen in the light of the previous charge sheet, which is taken cognisance by the competent court, would have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya v. State of Gujarat 2022 Live Law (SC) 538, held that to invoke the provisions of Gujarat control of terrorism and organised act crime, 2015, in respect of an act of organised crime more than one charge sheet should be filed in the preceding ten years. Section 111 of B.N.S. is analogous to the organised crime acts of various states, which were dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5260. The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court has emphasised that Section 111 can be invoked only if more than one charge sheet has been filed for such offences in the preceding ten years before a competent court, and such charge sheets are taken cognisance of by the court. 11. The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court has emphasised that Section 111 can be invoked only if more than one charge sheet has been filed for such offences in the preceding ten years before a competent court, and such charge sheets are taken cognisance of by the court. 11. This Court agrees with the observations of the Kerala High Court, and admittedly, no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for similar offences in any court of law in the preceding ten years as such, cause for invocation of Section 111 of B.N.S. has to be dealt appropriately by the investigating ofÏcer during the course of investigation of the crime.” 25. It was held in Suraj Singh vs. State of Punjab (25.09.2024 - PHHC): MANU/PH/4288/2024 that the police must gather legally admissible evidence to connect the accused with the commission of a crime punishable under Section 111 of the BNS Act. It was observed: “15. To bring an offence into the four corners of an organised crime, the offence must fall under a category described in S. 111 of BNS, 2023. The prima facie evidence must be legally admissible to constitute any continuing unlawful activity to constitute an organised crime as defined in S. 111 BNS. Without legally admissible prima facie evidence, the State cannot make any suspect undergo custodial interrogation to hunt for such evidence against the suspect or others. The evidence must be gathered first to make out a prima facie case within the scope of S. 111 of BNS, and such evidence alone would justify custodial interrogation to carry out further investigation. Without legally admissible accusations, allegations, or evidence, the State cannot arrest a suspect to fish evidence against them or use such a suspect as custodial bait by any hook, line, and sinker to bring the case into the fold of S. 111 of BNS. Prima facie evidence must be admissible, and if such evidence is deemed inadmissible, the entire foundation will collapse.” 26. In the present case, there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of organized crime and prima facie Section 111 of BNS is not attracted to the present case. 27. Prima facie evidence must be admissible, and if such evidence is deemed inadmissible, the entire foundation will collapse.” 26. In the present case, there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of organized crime and prima facie Section 111 of BNS is not attracted to the present case. 27. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioners shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioners will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to in the Court and; (a) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 28. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 29. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 30. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Sub Jail Kaithu, Distt.Shimla,H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 31. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioners, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the ofÏcial website of this Court.