1 CGHC010357242026 2026:CGHC:42354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1214 of 2026 • Manish Kumar Bulani, S/o Parsaram Bulani, aged about 29 Years, Permanent Address- House No. 895, Near Santoshi Mandir, Pandri, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- Pin 492001 ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Officer In Charge, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin- 492001 ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Sections 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS, 2023’), calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G., in Sessions Case No.132/2026, whereby charges under Sections 111(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) read with Section AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.10.01 10:51:11 +0530 2 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘the BNS’) have been framed against the applicant/accused. By filing the instant revision, the applicant/accused has challenged only two charges framed against him, i.e. for the offences under Sections 111(5) and 317(4) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that to constitute an offence under Section 111(5) of the BNS, the prosecution has to prima facie establish that the accused/applicant intentionally harboured or concealed any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime. However, in the instant case, the allegation against the applicant is only to the effect that certain suspicious transactions were made in the mule account of the applicant. Hence, such allegation, by itself, does not prima facie establish that the applicant harboured or concealed any person indulging in organised crime. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the offence under Section 111(5) of the BNS. 4. So far as the challenge to the second charge, i.e. the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS, is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant contends that for framing the aforesaid charge, the prosecution has to prima facie establish that the accused/applicant had previously been convicted for an offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS and only thereafter it can be alleged that he habitually receives or deals in stolen property. According to learned counsel, no such previous conviction has been established by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the order framing charges under Sections 111(5) and 317(4) of the BNS be 3 quashed and the applicant/accused be discharged from the aforesaid two offences. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the order framing the charges, including the charges framed against the applicant/accused for the aforesaid offences. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The provision contained in Section 111(5) of the BNS is reproduced hereinbelow: “111. 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx 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.” 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that if any person harbours or conceals any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime, he shall be punished under the aforesaid provision. In the instant case, the charge-sheet does not disclose that the 4 applicant/accused had harboured or concealed any person involved in an organised crime, rather the allegation against the applicant is only to the extent that he handed over his bank account on rent to co-accused- Kristopher Lawrence, who is one of the accused in the instant case, and on account thereof, huge transactions of money were made in the bank account of the applicant/accused, in respect of which, complaints were made by the victims through the Samanvay Portal, including complaints made by Komal Kumari, Ashok Manna and Alpesh Patel, which have been filed by the police along with the charge-sheet. 8. 8. Thus, the material available on record does not disclose that the applicant had harboured or concealed any person involved in an organised crime. Therefore, the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G., in Sessions Case No.132/2026 framing charge against the applicant/accused under Section 111(5) of the BNS deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the applicant/accused is discharged from the said offence. 9. So far as the second charge, i.e. under Section 317(4) of the BNS, is concerned, the aforesaid provision is reproduced hereinbelow: “317. Stolen Property.-(1) Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India, but, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property. xxxx xxxx xxxx 5 (4). Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that if any person habitually receives or deals in any property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, he shall be punished under the aforesaid provision. In the instant case, the bank statement of the applicant shows that various transactions were made in his said mule account and, as stated in the preceding paragraph, complaints were made by Komal Kumari and Ashok Kumar Manna alleging that they were cheated online. Thus, the bank statement of the applicant/accused and the complaints filed by the aforesaid persons prima facie show that they were defrauded online and that the amounts were transferred from their accounts to the mule account of the applicant. The aforesaid material prima facie establishes the conduct attributed to the applicant/accused, namely, habitual receiving or dealing in stolen property, as contemplated under Section 317(4) of BNS. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that for framing a charge under Section 317(4) of BNS, there must necessarily be a previous conviction of the accused under Section 317(2) of the BNS. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision is partly allowed. The order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G., in Sessions Case No.132/2026, insofar as it frames a charge against the applicant- Manish Kumar Bulani under Section 111(5) of the BNS, is hereby set aside/quashed, and the applicant is discharged from the said offence. 6 However, the challenge to the charge framed under Section 317(4) of the BNS is rejected. The charge framed under Section 317(4) of the BNS shall remain intact. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh