Anil Pandit Claims Tiger Shroff Firing, Threatens Salman

US-based gangster Anil Pandit has allegedly claimed responsibility for the firing incident involving Bollywood actor Tiger Shroff’s vehicle in Mumbai’s Juhu area, while issuing threats against Salman Khan and others in the film industry. According to a report by The Indian Express, an audio clip received by multiple security agencies after the incident contains Pandit claiming responsibility for the shooting and warning those who work with Khan.

In the recording, Pandit allegedly threatens members of the film industry who cooperate with Salman Khan and demands that the actor apologise to his elder brother, Lawrence Bishnoi, and the Bishnoi community. The authenticity of the recording and the claims made in it should be distinguished from independently established facts about the shooting.

The reported threat has renewed concerns about the safety of Bollywood personalities following previous firing incidents and threats targeting people associated with the film industry. However, the available information does not independently establish the motive behind the Juhu shooting or confirm the identities of everyone involved.

What Anil Pandit allegedly said in the audio clip

According to The Indian Express, Pandit is heard in the audio clip claiming that he and his elder brother, Harman Sandhu, were responsible for the firing on Tiger Shroff’s car. He also allegedly warns people in the film industry against working independently of his group or alongside Salman Khan.

“I and my elder brother, Harman Sandhu, took responsibility for the firing incident on Tiger Shroff’s car,” Pandit allegedly says in the recording.

The reported recording includes a threat against people in the film industry who work with Salman Khan. Pandit allegedly describes the message as the group’s first and last warning.

He also reportedly threatens Khan and his family members with consequences if the actor does not apologise to Lawrence Bishnoi and the Bishnoi community.

These statements are allegations contained in the reported recording, not proof of the speaker’s involvement in the incident. Any claim of responsibility would need to be assessed alongside the police investigation and other available evidence.

Who is Anil Pandit, and what is his alleged connection to the Bishnoi gang?

According to a source cited by The Indian Express, Pandit is originally from Panipat in Haryana and is believed to have travelled to the United States through the illegal migration route commonly referred to as the “dunki route” in 2024.

The source alleged that Pandit subsequently began working for the Bishnoi gang. It also claimed that he had no criminal cases against him before leaving India, but that several cases had been registered against him after he allegedly became involved in gang-related activities.

The report further stated that Pandit was said to have replaced another gang member, Randeep Malik, around eight months before the report. The precise circumstances of that alleged change in the gang’s operations were not established in the supplied information.

A source quoted in the report also claimed that Pandit was not in direct contact with Lawrence Bishnoi and instead received instructions from Hari Chand Jaat, known as Harry Boxer.

According to the same source, Boxer had been operating from the United States since 2022 and had previously faced cases involving alleged extortion, robbery and attempted murder across Rajasthan, Punjab and Delhi.

These details rely on information attributed to sources in the report. They should not be treated as independently proven findings about the individuals’ current roles or relationships.

Tiger Shroff firing incident in Mumbai’s Juhu area

The firing incident involving Tiger Shroff’s vehicle was reported in Mumbai’s Juhu area on Sunday evening, according to the supplied report. The incident prompted concerns about the security of the actor and the broader safety of film-industry personalities.

Earlier reporting on the incident said the actor escaped unharmed. Preliminary accounts also described motorcycle-borne assailants opening fire, although the precise sequence of events and the identities of those responsible require confirmation through the investigation.

The reported audio clip emerged after the shooting and allegedly linked Pandit and Harman Sandhu to the attack. A claim of responsibility, however, does not by itself establish who fired the shots or whether the people named in a recording directly participated in the incident.

The investigation is also important for determining whether the firing was connected to the threats against Salman Khan or to any wider criminal network. The information provided does not establish a confirmed motive or conclusively demonstrate the nature of any organisational involvement.

Earlier firing outside Guru Randhawa’s gym in Delhi

The Juhu incident follows a separate firing incident reported outside a gym owned by Punjabi singer Guru Randhawa in West Delhi’s Paschim Vihar on June 11, according to the supplied report.

Police said two motorcycle-borne assailants allegedly opened fire outside the 24HS Fitness Gym at around 4 am. No injuries were reported in that incident, and investigators recovered seven empty cartridges from the scene.

Police later arrested the alleged shooters, the report stated. The supplied information does not establish whether the Delhi incident was connected to the firing involving Tiger Shroff or whether the same individuals were involved in both cases.

The incidents have drawn attention to the security challenges facing public figures and businesses that may become targets of threats. Establishing any connection between separate shootings requires evidence from the respective investigations rather than similarities in the reported methods or claims of responsibility.

Previous threats following firing outside Rohit Shetty’s residence

The Indian Express had previously reported that threats targeting Bollywood personalities followed a firing incident outside filmmaker Rohit Shetty’s residence on February 1.

According to that report, threats were claimed to have been received by three people, including actors Ranveer Singh and Salman Khan’s brother-in-law, Aayush Sharma, along with another individual.

The report noted a recurring pattern in which the people sending the threats allegedly presented themselves as members of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang.

Such claims can complicate investigations because a person’s assertion of gang affiliation does not necessarily establish membership in, or authorisation from, a criminal organisation. Investigators must assess the origin of communications, the identities of those responsible and any supporting evidence before drawing conclusions.

The earlier threats also provide context for why the latest reported recording has raised concern. Nevertheless, the available information does not independently confirm that every threat attributed to the Bishnoi gang originated from the same network or was part of a coordinated campaign.

Why the reported threats against Salman Khan matter

The alleged warning to Salman Khan is a significant part of the reported audio clip because it extends beyond the shooting involving Tiger Shroff’s vehicle. Pandit allegedly threatens people who work with Khan and demands an apology to Lawrence Bishnoi and the Bishnoi community.

The reported threats against Khan and his family members add to the security concerns surrounding the actor. However, the recording’s claims should be assessed separately from any verified evidence linking the speaker to the shooting or establishing that a wider group authorised the threats.

The incident also raises questions about whether public figures, their families and people working with them may face intimidation through threats that invoke the names of criminal gangs. Determining the credibility of such threats and identifying those responsible are matters for law enforcement.

What remains unconfirmed in the case

Although the reported recording contains a direct claim of responsibility, several important details remain unresolved in the information provided.

• Authenticity of the recording: The report describes an audio clip received by security agencies, but the supplied material does not provide independent verification of its authenticity.
• Identity of the attackers: Pandit’s alleged statement does not, by itself, establish who physically opened fire on the vehicle.
• Motive: The recording reportedly contains threats and demands, but the full circumstances and motive behind the shooting have not been independently established in the supplied information.
• Gang involvement: Alleged links to the Bishnoi gang and instructions from Harry Boxer are attributed to sources. They should not be treated as conclusive proof of an authorised gang operation.
• Connection to earlier incidents: The firing outside Guru Randhawa’s gym and the threats reported after the incident outside Rohit Shetty’s residence are separate events. A direct connection to the Juhu shooting has not been established in the supplied material.

The distinction between a threat, a claim of responsibility and verified evidence is central to understanding the case. Investigators would need to establish the recording’s origin, corroborate the alleged links between individuals and examine evidence relating to the shooting.

Investigation and security concerns after the Juhu shooting

The reported claim by Anil Pandit has brought renewed attention to threats against Bollywood personalities and the possibility that shootings may be used to intimidate actors or people associated with them.

The immediate priorities in the case are to establish who carried out the firing, verify the recording and determine whether the threats are connected to the attack. Any alleged relationship between the incident and other cases would also require evidence.

For now, Pandit’s reported claim and the threats attributed to him remain allegations that must be assessed against the findings of the investigation. The available information does not establish that the shooting was a confirmed assassination attempt or conclusively prove that it was ordered by a particular criminal organisation.