The attempted shooting of Bollywood actor Tiger Shroff in Mumbai has again exposed an uncomfortable question for India’s security establishment: how does a gang whose alleged leader has been in prison for years continue to issue threats, claim responsibility for violence and operate across states -- and, according to foreign prosecutors, across continents?

Three gunmen opened fire at Shroff’s car in Juhu on the evening of October 18 as he was leaving a gathering. The actor escaped without gunshot injuries, but his driver and another person were injured. Mumbai Police registered an attempt-to-murder case, and the Crime Branch has taken over the investigation.

Within hours, a social-media post and an audio clip attributed to Anil Pandit claimed responsibility in the name of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang. Police have not yet independently verified the claim or formally established the gang’s role, but the speed of the claim -- and the arrest of three alleged shooters in Rajasthan -- has renewed scrutiny of Bishnoi’s network.

What happened in Juhu

Shroff was travelling in his car after a football session at Pushpa Narsee Park in Juhu when assailants on a motorcycle fired at the vehicle. Initial accounts said between three and seven rounds were fired; police said Shroff escaped unhurt, while his driver, Firdaus, sustained a bullet injury to his hand.

The Mumbai Police registered an FIR against three unidentified accused under attempt-to-murder and Arms Act provisions. CCTV footage from Andheri West railway station helped investigators track the suspects, who were later caught at Kota railway station in Rajasthan while allegedly trying to flee towards Nepal.

Rajasthan Police said the three detained suspects, included two from Haryana and one from Bihar, with one allegedly a minor. Investigators are now examining whether the shooters were hired, financed and directed remotely by members of the Bishnoi syndicate.

The claim that changed the story

After the firing, messages attributed to Anil Pandit and Harman Sandhu claimed responsibility on behalf of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang. The post allegedly said Shroff had been warned earlier and threatened further action against those associated with Salman Khan.

The claim has not been verified by Mumbai Police. But its importance lies less in whether it is immediately provable and more in what it illustrates: a jailed gangster’s name can be invoked to claim a high-profile attack in India’s entertainment capital, generate fear and force police into a multi-state investigation.

For Bollywood, the message was direct. The alleged threat linked Shroff to Salman Khan -- long a target of Bishnoi gang rhetoric -- and suggested that professional associations could be treated as grounds for violence.

A gang that does not need its leader outside

Lawrence Bishnoi is lodged in Gujarat’s Sabarmati Central Jail, while his brother Anmol Bishnoi is in Delhi’s Tihar Jail. Yet investigators and prosecutors have repeatedly alleged that the syndicate continues to function through intermediaries, overseas associates, encrypted communication and social-media branding.

A US federal indictment filed in California in July alleged that Bishnoi directed murders, shootings, extortion, kidnappings, drug trafficking and human smuggling using contraband mobile phones and voice-over-internet devices smuggled into his jail cell. Indian agencies have made comparable allegations in earlier cases.

The alleged model is decentralised: local shooters are recruited or hired; handlers coordinate logistics and payments; associates abroad amplify threats online; and the gang’s name itself becomes an instrument of intimidation.

In the Tiger Shroff case, investigators are examining whether alleged handler Anil Pandit offered money and promised to send an accused abroad.

Why police face a custody wall

Mumbai Police cannot simply take Lawrence or Anmol Bishnoi out of prison for questioning. The Union Home Ministry has invoked Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to restrict their movement from their respective jails, citing public-order concerns.

The restriction does not prevent interrogation altogether. Investigators can seek court permission to question them inside prison, but that is materially different from physical custody: no transit, no controlled movement outside jail and fewer operational options for confronting an accused with evidence gathered across jurisdictions.

This legal architecture is intended to prevent prison transfers that could create security risks or enable escape. Critics, however, argue that when an inmate is accused of directing violence from within custody, the same restrictions can slow investigations and reduce pressure on the network.

The security failure question

The central issue is not merely whether Bishnoi personally ordered the Shroff firing. It is whether India’s high-security prison system can prevent an incarcerated gang leader from communicating with the outside world.

The US indictment and earlier NIA allegations specifically refer to smuggled phones and encrypted communication devices. Bishnoi's lawyer has said he is held in solitary confinement under continuous CCTV surveillance; investigators and prosecutors, by contrast, maintain that contraband devices and intermediaries have allowed the network to persist.

Each new claim of responsibility -- from extortion messages to celebrity shootings -- therefore becomes a test of prison intelligence, phone-jamming systems, visitor monitoring, staff accountability and coordination among state police forces.

The Tiger Shroff case shows that the alleged network can still mobilise shooters, communicate a claim and attempt an escape route across state lines.

Why Bollywood is a target

Celebrity attacks serve a dual purpose for organised crime: they create fear and they manufacture publicity. A shooting aimed at a film star guarantees national attention in a way that an attack on a businessman or local rival may not.

The Bishnoi gang's alleged strategy relies heavily on this visibility. Claims of responsibility, threats issued through social media and references to Salman Khan help convert violence into a brand.

Police will need to prove four links before calling it a Bishnoi gang operation:

* That the three detained shooters carried out the firing.

* That Anil Pandit or other alleged handlers commissioned, financed or directed them.

* That communications or financial trails connect the operation to the Bishnoi network.

* That the online claim of responsibility was authentic rather than opportunistic.

Until those links are established, the gang's responsibility remains an allegation. But the incident has already achieved what such attacks are designed to achieve: fear, headlines and a reminder that prison walls have not dismantled the syndicate.