Delhi Court Sentences Five Bharat Bhushan Gang Members to Life Imprisonment Under MCOCA

The court in Thursday found five members of the Bharat Bhushan gang guilty of a series of armed robberies, extortion and other offences in the National Capital Region (NCR) and Delhi, saying the nature of their offences threatened the society and society could offer them least chance of reformation.

All five convicts, Bhushan alias Tony, Neeraj, Vikash, Jitender and Deepak, were sentenced to life imprisonment with an additional fine of ₹5 lakh each under Section 3(4) of MCOCA that had many a similar sentences imposed on them, for their involvement in an organised crime syndicate, by Special Judge Gaurav Rao of Rouse Avenue Courts.

Also Read: Nicki Minaj Backs Trump Amid Democratic Congress Sweep, Hits Back at Critics With 'I Don't Vote, I Veto' Remark

The Bhushan gang, also known as the Bharat Bhushan gang, is an inter-state gang that operates in Narela area of Delhi and also has presence in neighbouring Haryana, led by Bhushan alias Tony.

The prosecution's case was that Bhushan was in charge of an inter-state criminal gang, while the four others were its core members. It claimed the group was responsible for numerous crimes, including armed robbery, burglary and extortion, attempted murder, murder and had no hesitation in using firearms during robberies.

The prosecutor also told the court that the gang's members threatened to kill people to obtain the money, as well as intimidating witnesses to ensure they do not testify against the gang.

Highlighting the gang's modus, the court's conviction judgment specifically mentioned the types of victims in the former cases referred to by the prosecution—cash collection company employees, bank workers, cashiers who had cash to be deposited, security guards accompanying cash vans, and even the owner of a grocery shop.

The court noted that the crimes of the gang members were violent, and that they were using arms, with the money being the common cause.

In its order announcing the maximum punishment, the court has said the number of cases in which the accused had been involved, and the nature of the crime committed by the accused, were grave and heinous.

The judge noted that there were “many crimes committed by the convicts” with “total disregard of human life,” in their disclosure statements, some of which he had discussed in the judgment.

“The convicts per se looked as if they were a danger to the civilized society”, the court said, adding that there was little hope for them to be reformed as their involvement with the criminal cases had been repeated and two of the members of the syndicate were themselves a prison convict.

The plea for leniency by the defence, due to the convicts' long incarceration and family responsibilities, was also rejected by the court.

Prosecution, however, were against any leniency, claiming that the convicts had been engaged in the 'heinous acts' for a long time, and that they were unlikely to reform themselves. The prosecutor also pointed out that Bhushan and Neeraj were previous convicts and sought the maximum punishment.

As for the sentence, the court emphasized that it needed to consider not only the interest of the accused but also the "social interest," and that if sentencing were too light, it would lose the trust of the public in the judicial system.

A judge cannot be casual in imposing the sentence because it has to be equally important as the crime and the criminal in the sentence process, he said.

Also Read: A Stab in My Chest: Kochi Crash Victim’s Daughter Reacts to Judge’s Anticipatory Bail

The court also referred to a Supreme Court decision in B.G. Goswami vs Delhi Administration (1974) which stated that punishment should serve the purpose of protecting the society and give it the deterrent effect that is required from the punishment so that the punished individuals do not commit the same offence again, thereby turning them into good law-abiding citizens.

The court, however, observed that 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. and only by the modus operandi of activities and common involvement of members 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 an unlawful activity as there were gaps in the offences, which had not required the offences to be committed daily or at regular intervals.

The court said the only break in the accused's unlawful activities was when they were arrested in various FIRs at varying periods of time, and they were still involved in “unlawful activities as members of an organised crime syndicate”.

The judge went on to say that the previous chargesheets were not just a reflection of the criminal antecedents of the accused but had 'created a nexus'.

The court acquired the remaining chargesheet and proceedings were adequate to find that the requirements for invoking MCOCA were met in some of the earlier cases.

Also Raed: MSRTC Announces ₹10,000 Diwali Bonus for 83,000 Employees, DA Increased to 60%