Tiger Shroff firing: Why the 11 accused are unlikely to get bail soon

Two shooters opened fire as Tiger Shroff was leaving a football ground in Juhu. They fired five rounds at his car. Shroff was not hurt, but his driver and an autorickshaw driver suffered injuries. The attack brought the alleged involvement of the Bishnoi gang into focus.

The police arrested 11 people in connection with the firing. They also named Anil Pandit as a wanted accused. The article reports that Pandit faces cases elsewhere in the country and is suspected to be in the United States. The arrests took place across Rajasthan, Delhi, and Haryana.

The police have now applied MCOCA to all 11 arrested accused. They say the law is relevant because the attack was allegedly linked to an organised crime syndicate. All 11 are in police custody and will be produced before the special MCOCA court, where police will seek further custody.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, or MCOCA, is a special law used against alleged organised crime. It matters because it changes both the investigation and the accused’s chances of getting bail. The law is designed for cases where a syndicate is suspected of organised criminal activity for financial gain.

Under MCOCA, bail can be granted only when the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty. Police also receive up to 180 days to file a chargesheet, compared with 90 days under ordinary criminal law. They can seek longer police custody as well.

The law also allows confessions recorded before an officer of DCP rank to be used as evidence. Normally, only confessions recorded before a magistrate count. In this case, police invoked MCOCA Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) against all 11 arrested accused.

Police have arrested 11 people over the firing at Tiger Shroff’s car. Three were arrested in Kota, Rajasthan, while the remaining accused were held in Delhi and Haryana. All 11 are currently in police custody and will appear before the special MCOCA court.

The article compares this case with other alleged operations carried out at the Lawrence Bishnoi gang’s direction. These include the 2024 firing outside Salman Khan’s house, the killing of NCP leader Baba Siddique, and firing outside filmmaker Rohit Shetty’s home earlier this year.

Across those similar cases, nearly 40 people have been accused. All but one remain in jail. The comparison shows the practical impact of using MCOCA: accused people may face a tougher route to bail while investigations and prosecution continue under the special law.

Invoking MCOCA makes bail harder because the court cannot grant it under the ordinary standard. It must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. This places a demanding legal threshold before release while the case is still being investigated.

The law also strengthens the investigation in related ways. Police get 180 days to file a chargesheet instead of 90 days. They can seek longer police custody, and confessions recorded before an officer of DCP rank are admissible as evidence. Under ordinary criminal law, only confessions before a magistrate count.

The reported results in comparable cases illustrate the consequence. Police used MCOCA in cases linked allegedly to the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, including the Salman Khan firing and Baba Siddique killing. Of nearly 40 accused across those cases, all but one remain in jail.

MCOCA cannot be applied simply because several people are accused in one serious crime. Police must show that an organised crime syndicate was involved and that it acted for financial gain. This requirement connects the alleged offence to an ongoing criminal organisation rather than an isolated incident.

Police must also establish a prior record involving the syndicate. At least two chargesheets must have been filed earlier against a member of that syndicate. In the Juhu case, police named Anil Pandit as a wanted accused and said he faces cases in other parts of the country.

The police also need approval from the competent authority before invoking the law. DCP (Crime) Raj Tilak Roushan said that the necessary permission had been obtained. Police then invoked Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) against the 11 arrested accused.

MCOCA gives investigators more time and wider powers than ordinary criminal law. Police have 180 days to file a chargesheet, double the 90-day period mentioned in the article. This gives them longer to investigate an alleged organised-crime network before the prosecution must file its case.

The law also allows police to seek longer custody of the accused. In the Juhu case, all 11 arrested people are in police custody. They will be produced before the special MCOCA court, where police will seek custody as the investigation continues.

Evidence rules change too. A confession recorded before an officer of DCP rank can be admitted under MCOCA. Under ordinary criminal law, only a confession recorded before a magistrate counts. These differences give investigators more time, custody options, and a broader route for using recorded confessions.

The article distinguishes an organised crime syndicate from a loose group of accused people by focusing on organisation and continuity. Police must show that the group acted as a syndicate, carried out organised crime, and sought financial gain. A single alleged offence by several people is not enough by itself.

The law also requires a documented history. At least two chargesheets must previously have been filed against a member of the syndicate. This requirement helps police connect the current allegation to an established criminal network rather than treating it as an isolated event.

In the Juhu case, police say the necessary permission was obtained before invoking MCOCA. They applied Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4), covering organised crime without a resulting death, facilitating organised crime, and membership of an organised crime syndicate. The special court will consider the case as police seek custody.