The Allahabad High Court rejected an application praying for setting aside the entire proceedings of State Vs. Mehandi Hasan & Ors., impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 2.4.2022 and the impugned charge-sheet dated 20.7.2021, arising out of Case under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986. The court observed that illegal extraction of mines and minerals would fall under the category of immovable property.
Brief Facts:
The issue involved in the present case is whether a group of persons acting collectively by violence or otherwise with an object of disturbing public order for gaining any undue temporal pecuniary advantage indulged in anti-social activities of illegal mining would fall under the definition of ‘Gang’ under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that illegal mining activity would not fall under any of the anti-social activities as mentioned in Section 2 (b) (i) to 2 (b) (xxv) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; therefore, the impugned charge-sheet filed against applicants under the Act only on the basis of criminal cases lodged for illegal mining though in addition to charge-sheet filed against applicants under Section 379 I.P.C., would not legally sustain.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the applicants by indulging in illegal mining have also created panic, alarm, and terror in public as well as the impact has fallen on the security of the State, public order, and even on the tempo of life, which are anti-social activities under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; therefore, there was no illegality in the charge-sheet filed against applicants under Act.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that illegal extraction of mines and minerals would fall under the category of immoveable property, and therefore, any illegal activity in respect of illegal mining would definitely fall under the above-referred definition of Gang. As soon as minerals are moved from one place to another, it would also fall under offence of ‘theft’.
Further, the Court remarked that there is merit in the argument of learned A.G.A 1st that in F.I.R. there was a specific allegation of creating panic and alarm in public as well as its impact on the security of State also, which are ‘anti-social activities’. In addition to it, an offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is also prima-facie made out against the applicants. All these offences will definitely fall under the description of anti-social activities as mentioned in section Section 2 (b) (i) to 2 (b) (xxv) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and specifically under Section 2 (b) (iii), (xi) and (xxv) of the Act. Therefore, there is no ground for interference with the charge sheet filed against applicants.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, rejecting the bail application, held that there is no ground for interference with the charge sheet filed against applicants.
Case Title: Mehandihasan & Ors. v State Of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Case no.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18996 of 2022 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Vikrant Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
