Suspicious mule-account transactions alone do not establish harbouring under Section 111(5) BNS.

The applicant challenged the order framing charges against him under Sections 111(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), contesting only the charges under Sections 111(5) and 317(4).

The prosecution alleged that he had rented his bank account to a co-accused, through which substantial sums—including amounts allegedly transferred by online-fraud victims—were transacted.

The applicant sought discharge from both challenged offences; the State supported the charges.

Whether the material in the charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case that the applicant intentionally harboured or concealed a person who had committed organised crime, as required by Section 111(5) of the BNS.

Whether a prior conviction under Section 317(2) of the BNS was necessary to frame a charge under Section 317(4), and whether the available material otherwise made out a prima facie case under Section 317(4).

Section 111(5) of the BNS punishes a person who intentionally harbours or conceals someone who has committed organised crime, subject to the stated spousal exception.

Section 317(4) punishes a person who habitually receives or deals in property that the person knows or has reason to believe is stolen property.

The Court treated habitual receipt or dealing, together with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe, as the statutory elements of Section 317(4); it held that a prior conviction under Section 317(2) is not a necessary precondition to framing a charge under Section 317(4).

The revision was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The charge-sheet alleged that the applicant provided his bank account to a co-accused and that fraud-related funds were transferred through it, but it did not allege that he harboured or concealed a person involved in organised crime. The Court therefore found the essential conduct required by Section 111(5) absent.

By contrast, the bank statement and complaints by alleged online-fraud victims indicated repeated transactions into the applicant’s account, which the Court considered sufficient at the charge stage to prima facie support habitual receipt or dealing in stolen property. It rejected the argument that a prior conviction under Section 317(2) was required.

The Court set aside the charge under Section 111(5) of the BNS and discharged the applicant from that offence. It rejected the challenge to the Section 317(4) charge, which remains in force.