Tiger Shroff Firing Case, Lawrence, Anmol Bishnoi: Police are probing claims that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang was behind Sunday’s firing at Bollywood actor Tiger Shroff in Juhu. Yet in the gang’s earlier attacks on public figures like Baba Siddiqui, Salman Khan and Rohit Shetty in the city, Mumbai Police have been unable to get custody of Lawrence Bishnoi, lodged in Sabarmati Central Jail in Gujarat, or his brother Anmol, lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail.
Neither brother has been made part of the cases being heard in Mumbai courts, though both are named as wanted accused in the chargesheets. The reason is a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order that bars investigating agencies from taking them out of jail. Neither brother has been named as an accused in the attack on Shroff so far.
The question has now been raised politically. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi posted on X, “The larger question about the Lawrence Bishnoi gang should be that how is it possible that a man behind bars in Gujarat’s Sabarmati Jail continues to wield so much power outside of it? How is it that while India has managed to nearly end Naxalism is unable to control this gang? Thereby hangs a tale.”
She added, “Why is it that Mumbai Police hasn’t been able to question the gangster in jail since the first attempted shootout outside Salman Khan residence? Who and why is there no active cooperation in addressing this issue ?
What is the order keeping the Bishnoi brothers in jail?
In August 2023, the MHA issued an order restricting Lawrence from being taken out of jail for any purpose, under Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The order was in force for a year. In August 2024, it was extended for another year, and it has been extended annually since under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC. After Anmol was deported from the US in November 2025, the MHA passed a similar order for him on December 5, 2025.
While the orders are in force, any court order requiring the brothers to be produced has no effect. An agency that wants to question them must get a court’s permission and do it inside the jail.
What does the law say?
Under Section 303 of the BNSS, both the Central government, in cases instituted by central agencies such as the NIA, and state governments can “by general or special order, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained, and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force.”
Section 303(2) sets out three grounds for invoking it. First, the nature of the offence for which the person is confined, the likelihood of a disturbance of public order if they are moved out of prison, and the public interest generally.
However, investigating agencies have argued that questioning a person inside jail is limiting. Only one or two officials may be allowed to question them, for a few hours or a fixed period, and other accused cannot be brought in during the interrogation.
How has this played out in the Baba Siddique case?
Former minister and NCP leader Baba Siddique was shot dead outside the office of his son, former MLA Zeeshan Siddique, in Bandra East on October 12, 2024. Police say the 27 accused arrested in the case worked on the instructions of Anmol, who headed the organised crime syndicate. Anmol is named as a wanted accused in the chargesheet. The trial is set to begin.
On July 3 this year, Siddique’s wife filed an application asking the court to direct Mumbai Police to take custody of Anmol from Tihar Jail, alleging “lethargy” on their part. On July 10, the special MCOCA court came down heavily on the police for not bringing Anmol before it. It later issued a show-cause notice to the investigating officer, asking why action should not be taken against him for not taking custody of the man the police themselves called the head of the syndicate.
In its reply to the notice, filed by an assistant commissioner of police, the police cited the MHA order. “The order has thus created an express legal embargo against obtaining physical custody of the accused..the physical custody of the accused is very much essential for carrying out an effective investigation and without it, the investigating agency will be handicapped in carrying out further investigation in the said offence,” the reply said. The police said they had therefore not questioned Anmol so far. Later in July, a special NIA court in Delhi rejected the Mumbai Police’s production warrant for Anmol’s custody, citing the MHA order.
What about the Salman Khan case?
In the 2024 case of the firing outside actor Salman Khan’s Bandra home, Anmol himself has sought to surrender and join the judicial proceedings. The plea is yet to be decided.
When can such orders be imposed?
Governments have cited security reasons, arguing that if a person is allowed out of jail, they may try to abscond or their lives could be in danger. Authorities also point to a person’s criminal history. If many cases are pending against them, they argue that moving them could lead to law-and-order problems.
In May 2013, the Maharashtra government issued a Government Resolution (GR) under Section 268 of the CrPC restricting the production of Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, an accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, before the court. The nature of the case against him was cited as the reason.
Ansari challenged the GR in the Bombay High Court, saying he wanted to be present in court and had a right to a fair trial. The court rejected his plea, saying it could not interfere given the sensitive nature of the case, and allowed him to attend the trial by video link from jail. However, courts have, at times, quashed such orders, saying the reasons given were not enough to restrict a prisoner’s movement.
The Gujarat government, where Lawrence is lodged, issued a circular in 2014 with guidelines for restricting prisoners’ movement. It said police should give a clear opinion on the movement of the accused after weighing the prisoner’s conduct and the gravity of the case. It also said arrangements should be made for a speedy trial, so that a prisoner facing such an order does not stay in jail for long without trial.
These provisions have also been used to deny furlough and parole to prisoners in terror cases. In one case before the Gujarat High Court, a man serving 20 years in a terror case said he had not been allowed out of jail on furlough because of an order under Section 268 of the CrPC. Since more than a decade had passed since the order and he had previously been granted parole, the court directed authorities to reconsider.
What it means for the Tiger Shroff case
The screenshot of a post claiming responsibility for Sunday’s attack listed the Lawrence Bishnoi gang first among several names. The claim after the firing outside filmmaker Rohit Shetty’s residence in February this year did the same. If the gang is linked to the attack on Shroff, the same orders will most likely keep both brothers out of the Mumbai Police’s reach in this case too.
Source:- The Indian Express
