Last Updated:
The latest incident involving actor Tiger Shroff, whose vehicle was targeted by gunmen in Mumbai’s Juhu area on October 18 has brought the question back into sharp focus
(Clockwise from top left) Tiger Shroff, the spot where the firing occurred; Salman Khan. (File/PTI)
Mumbai has seen the October 18 scene before too. The characters have changed, the weapons have become easier to procure, and the threats now arrive through social media accounts and encrypted communication.
But the message remains familiar: pay up, comply, apologise or face the consequences.
For a city that once fought a bloody battle against organised crime in the 1990s, the return of targeted shootings and extortion threats against the Hindi film industry is deeply troubling. The latest incident involving actor Tiger Shroff, whose vehicle was targeted by gunmen in Mumbai’s Juhu area on October 18 has brought the question back into sharp focus: is a criminal syndicate attempting to establish its authority over Bollywood by making examples of prominent personalities?
The Lawrence Bishnoi gang has been linked by investigators and media reports to a series of threats and attacks against celebrities, business interests and political figures. Following the Juhu shooting, accounts claiming links to the gang issued warnings directed at the film industry and renewed threats against Salman Khan. The claims and the precise chain of command behind individual attacks must be established through investigation. But the pattern of intimidation itself demands an urgent response.
The issue is no longer simply about the personal security of a film star. When gunmen can allegedly target a celebrity’s residence or vehicle in Mumbai, the concern extends to the city’s wider security environment. A threat made to a famous actor is also a message to producers, financiers, business owners, and anyone who might believe that refusing a gangster’s demand carries a price.
A DECADE OF THREATS: FROM INTIMIDATION TO TARGETED VIOLENCE
At A Glance
Actor Tiger Shroff’s vehicle was targeted by gunmen in Mumbai’s Juhu area on October 18.
Two motorcycle-borne assailants fired five rounds outside Salman Khan’s Galaxy Apartments residence on April 14, 2024.
Former Maharashtra minister Baba Siddique was shot dead outside his son’s office in Bandra East on October 12, 2024.
Complainant Kapil Sharma’s café in Canada was targeted in three separate shooting incidents between July and October 2025.
Anmol Bishnoi was arrested by the National Investigation Agency on November 19, 2025, following his deportation from the United States.
The gang’s rise in the public imagination has been fuelled by a series of incidents in which celebrities, their associates and prominent figures have faced threats or violence. Not every incident involving a purported gang member proves the existence of a single centrally directed campaign. Nevertheless, the documented cases reveal the reach and the intimidation tactics that investigators have been attempting to dismantle.
The most consequential incidents include:
2018 — Salman Khan: Lawrence Bishnoi publicly threatened Khan in connection with the blackbuck poaching case. The actor had been convicted by a Jodhpur court in April 2018 in the case arising from the 1998 hunting incident. Members of the Bishnoi community regard the blackbuck as sacred, and the case became the justification repeatedly invoked in threats against the actor.
April 14, 2024 — Salman Khan: Two motorcycle-borne assailants fired five rounds outside the actor’s Galaxy Apartments residence in Bandra. Mumbai Police subsequently filed a 1,735-page chargesheet naming Lawrence Bishnoi and other accused. The case brought the threat from online intimidation to gunfire outside a prominent Mumbai residence.
October 12, 2024 — Baba Siddique: Former Maharashtra minister and NCP leader Baba Siddique was shot dead outside his son Zeeshan Siddique’s office in Bandra East. The Mumbai Crime Branch’s January 2025 chargesheet identified Anmol Bishnoi as a key alleged conspirator and said Siddique had been targeted partly because of his association with Salman Khan. Those are allegations in the prosecution’s case, not a final judicial finding.
2025 — Gippy Grewal, AP Dhillon and Kapil Sharma: Shooting incidents and threats associated in media reports and police investigations with the Bishnoi network extended the intimidation narrative beyond Mumbai. Gunfire outside comedian Kapil Sharma’s café in Canada and attacks connected to Punjabi music personalities illustrated how celebrity-linked threats can cross national borders. The responsibility and circumstances must be assessed separately in each case.
July–October 2025 — Kapil Sharma: The comedian’s newly opened Kap’s Cafe in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, was targeted in three separate shooting incidents on July 10, August 7 and October 16, 2025. The first attack involved nearly 10 rounds, while more than 25 shots were reported during the August incident.
February 1, 2026 — Rohit Shetty: Five rounds were fired outside the filmmaker’s Juhu residence. A social media account claiming links to the Bishnoi gang took responsibility and warned the film industry to fall in line. Mumbai Police arrested suspects and pursued the investigation. A chargesheet filed in May reportedly described the objective as establishing the gang’s supremacy.
October 18, 2026 — Tiger Shroff: Gunmen fired at a vehicle carrying the actor in Juhu. The incident prompted renewed security concerns, while online messages attributed to alleged gang associates claimed responsibility and threatened Salman Khan and people associated with him. Police must establish the authenticity of those claims and the actual chain of command behind the shooting.
This is not merely a chronology of celebrity scares. The shooting outside Salman Khan’s home, Siddique’s murder and the attacks on properties associated with film personalities raise a more disturbing question: are public figures being selected not only for what they represent, but also for the publicity their victimisation generates?
WHO RUNS THE BISHNOI NETWORK?
Lawrence Bishnoi, who rose through criminal networks in Punjab and northern India, is the central figure associated with the syndicate. He has remained in custody, including at Gujarat’s Sabarmati Central Jail, while investigations have described an organisation operating through associates and alleged shooters outside prison.
His younger brother, Anmol Bishnoi, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency on November 19, 2025, following his deportation from the United States. The NIA said he had allegedly helped operate the network from abroad, providing logistical support to shooters and ground operatives. His arrest was a significant development, although it did not, by itself, dismantle the wider network.
Other names appearing in investigations and reporting include Shubham Lonkar, an alleged key conspirator in the Baba Siddique case; Goldy Brar, associated with the wider Bishnoi-linked criminal ecosystem; and Harry Boxer, named in reports concerning threats to celebrities. More recently, Anil Pandit and Harman Sandhu have appeared in claims relating to the Tiger Shroff shooting. Their precise roles and the authenticity of communications attributed to them require case-specific verification. An online claim of responsibility is not, on its own, proof of guilt.
The network’s alleged operating model is particularly worrying: individuals who issue threats need not be the same people who carry out shootings. Communications can originate abroad, local recruits can arrange transport and weapons, and young men can be drawn into violence through money, intimidation or promises of status. Arresting the person who pulls the trigger is necessary, but it is not enough if the wider infrastructure remains intact.
WHY SALMAN KHAN, AND WHY BOLLYWOOD?
The Salman Khan connection has two distinct dimensions. The first is the blackbuck case. Bishnoi has invoked the community’s reverence for the animal as the reason for targeting the actor. The second is the gang’s apparent use of that grievance as a recurring public narrative.
Khan’s fame gives the threat extraordinary reach. Any message directed at him immediately becomes national news. The gang can use that visibility to advertise its supposed power, intimidate people associated with him and cultivate a reputation among potential recruits. The alleged targeting of Baba Siddique, as described in the police chargesheet, demonstrates the danger of extending a personal vendetta to people in an actor’s social circle.
But a claim of moral or community-based grievance cannot justify murder, extortion or the threat of violence. Nor should the Bishnoi gang be allowed to present itself as a representative of the Bishnoi community. A criminal organisation’s rhetoric must not be confused with the beliefs of an entire community.
Why target Mumbai? The city concentrates celebrity wealth, commercial opportunity, high-profile social networks and media attention. Bollywood is not simply a collection of actors; it is an economic ecosystem of producers, financiers, distributors, event organisers and business interests. If threats can influence who works with whom, who pays whom and who feels safe enough to operate, the gang gains leverage without needing to control the industry formally.
That is the distinction between seeking publicity and seeking power. The former produces headlines. The latter seeks compliance.
WHERE ARE THE POLICE AND THE STATE?
Mumbai Police have made arrests, filed chargesheets and pursued several investigations. Those actions matter and should not be dismissed. But the larger test is whether the authorities can prevent repeated attacks, establish the financial and communications links behind them, and bring the alleged masterminds to trial.
The questions are uncomfortable but unavoidable. Were threats against Salman Khan assessed early enough? Could the shooting outside his residence have been prevented? What intelligence was available before Baba Siddique was killed? Were threats against film personalities shared effectively between local police units and specialist agencies? And how can an organisation allegedly directed by people in custody continue to communicate threats and mobilise shooters?
The state government must explain what has changed in its approach to organised crime. Enhanced security after a shooting is essential, but it is a response to an attack that has already happened. Intelligence-led policing, witness protection, financial investigations, surveillance of unlawful networks and effective coordination across states must operate before the next gunman arrives.
There is also a danger in treating every threatening message as authentic. Police have previously examined suspected copycat threats and accounts falsely claiming criminal affiliations. Investigators must distinguish genuine syndicate operations from impersonation without allowing uncertainty to become an excuse for inaction.
Mumbai has confronted organised crime before. The lesson of the 1990s is not that the state should return to extrajudicial methods or public displays of force. It is that sustained intelligence work, lawful prosecution, disruption of funding and protection of witnesses are more consequential than tough talk after a tragedy.
A WARNING FROM EKNATH SHINDE
In a conversation with CNN-News18, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde said that the state would respond to such criminals in kind, and that, if required, the police would take action on the scale of the crackdown against gang warfare in the 1990s. His message was that threats and intimidation would not be allowed to dictate terms to Mumbai.
The political resolve is welcome. But the public will judge the government not by the force of its words, but by whether the next threatened actor, businessperson or political leader is actually protected. A gangster’s claim to control Bollywood must be met with evidence, arrests, prosecution and convictions where guilt is established—not merely another round of security reviews after bullets have been fired.
Mumbai cannot afford to become a city where fame attracts extortion, association invites retaliation and silence is mistaken for submission. The real test for the police and the government is simple: can they ensure that no criminal syndicate, however notorious its name or far-reaching its network, gets to decide who works, who pays and who lives in fear?
About the Author
Mayuresh Ganapatye, News Editor at News18.com, writes on politics and civic issues, as well as human interests stories. He has been covering Maharashtra and Goa for more than a decade. Follow him at @…Read More
October 19, 2026, 17:04 IST
Read More
