Allahabad High Court
Sonu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18996 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sonu Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudarshan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heardlearned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A, for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 27.09.2022 registered as Case Crime No.240 of 2022 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Baluwa, District Chandauli. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the proceeding under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster Act (for short 'Gangster Act') has been drawn against the petitioner only on the basis of solitary case registered as Case Crime No.85 of 2022 under Section 489-B, 489-C, 489-D IPC, P.S. Baluwa, District Chandauli, wherein he has been accorded bail by this Court on 04.7.2022 and as such, the proceeding under the Gangster Act is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though the petitioner had been accorded bail in the aforementioned Case Crime but in the said case, the charge sheet has already been submitted to the competent court and as such no indulgence is required in the present matter. He has further submitted that law is already settled that even against the solitary case proceeding under the Gangster Act may be drawn. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2019 (Somvir Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) as well as in many judgments by this Court, wherein it is propounded that even a single case, if fulfills the category of offences given under Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that based on solitary case, the imposition of Section 3(1) of Gangster Act is not leviable, would have no bearing. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider as to whether prosecution under the Gangster Act can be initiated against a person even in case of single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"On a fair reading of the definitions of 'Gang' contained in Section 2(b) and 'Gangster' contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a 'Gangster' means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a 'Gang' and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act...Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person."
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgments cited above, we are also of the opinion that even on the basis of solitary case the provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed and as such, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
RKP
