Delhi court sentences five members of Bharat Bhushan gang to life imprisonment under MCOCA

The five were convicted under MCOCA for armed robberies, extortion and other crimes across Delhi and the NCR; the court said they posed a threat to society.

A Delhi court on Thursday sentenced five members of the Bharat Bhushan gang to life imprisonment under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for their involvement in a series of armed robberies, extortion and other offences across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), observing that their conduct posed a threat to society and left little scope for reformation.

Delhi court sentences five members of Bharat Bhushan gang to life imprisonment under MCOCA

Special Judge Gaurav Rao of Rouse Avenue Courts awarded life imprisonment to all five convicts --- Bhushan alias Tony, Neeraj, Vikash, Jitender and Deepak ---- under Section 3(4) of MCOCA, which punishes membership of an organised crime syndicate, and imposed a fine of ₹5 lakh each.

The Bharat Bhushan gang, led by Bhushan alias Tony, is an inter-state criminal syndicate based in Delhi’s Narela area with activities extending from the capital to neighbouring Haryana.

According to the prosecution’s case, Bhushan headed an inter-state criminal gang, with the other four acting as its key members. It alleged that the group was involved in a range of offences, including murder, attempt to murder, armed robbery, burglary and extortion, and used firearms without hesitation while carrying out robberies.

Emphasising the gang’s modus operandi, the court’s conviction judgment specifically listed the kinds of targets in the previous cases cited by the prosecution: employees of cash-collection companies, bank employees, cashiers carrying money for deposit, security guards accompanying cash vans and even a grocery shop owner.

The court found that the gang members’ offences involved violence and the use of arms, with pecuniary gain as their common objective.

Explaining its decision to impose the maximum punishment, the court said the number of cases involving the accused and the nature of the crimes committed by them were grave and heinous.

“Their disclosure statements, part of which has been discussed in the judgment, highlight the impunity with which the convicts committed various crimes with absolutely no care for human life,” the judge observed.

“The convicts per se appear to be a threat to a civilised society,” the court said, adding that their repeated involvement in criminal cases and the fact that two members of the syndicate were previous convicts demonstrated their criminal bent of mind and left little scope for reform.

The court also rejected the plea for leniency made by the defence, which had cited the convicts’ prolonged incarceration and family responsibilities.

The prosecution, however, opposed any leniency, arguing that the convicts had been involved in heinous offences for a considerable period and that their repeated criminal activities showed little possibility of reformation. The prosecutor also pointed out that Bhushan and Neeraj were previous convicts and sought the maximum punishment.

In its sentencing order, the court stressed that punishment had to balance the interests of the accused with the larger concerns of society and that inadequate sentences could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

“The court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process,” the judge said.

The court further relied on a Supreme Court judgment in B.G. Goswami vs Delhi Administration (1974), which held that punishment must protect society by deterring potential offenders, preventing convicted persons from repeating offences and reforming them into law-abiding citizens.

Rejecting the defence argument that the prosecution had failed to establish a link between the accused through independent witnesses, call detail records or other communication evidence, the court observed, “Unlike legal organisations which are formed as per due process of law, it is difficult to establish the formation/existence of these crime syndicates by direct evidence, legal documentation, etc..” it added that their existence had to be inferred from the “modus operandi of activities” and the members’ common involvement in different FIRs.

“The repeated common involvement… is sufficient proof that the accused persons were part of, members of a crime syndicate,” the court said.

The court had also rejected the argument that the accused could not be said to have been engaged in continuing unlawful activity because there were gaps between the offences, clarifying that the law did not require crimes to be committed every day or at regular intervals.

“The only hiatus in their unlawful activities is on account of their arrest in different FIRs at different intervals of time,” the court said, concluding that the accused had continued to engage in “unlawful activities as members of an organised crime syndicate”.

The judge further noted that the earlier chargesheets did not merely reflect the accused persons’ criminal antecedents but established a nexus between them.

While some of the accused had been acquitted or discharged in certain earlier cases, the court held that the remaining chargesheets and proceedings were sufficient to establish the requirements for invoking MCOCA.