Allahabad High Court
Maifooj Ahmed vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 5 December, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:79615-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9229 of 2023
Petitioner :- Maifooj Ahmed
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Mani
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
This petition has been filed praying the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned first information dated 10.11.2023, vide case crime no. 255 of 2023 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, lodged at Police Station- Jethwara, District- Pratapgarh as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 not to harass, detain or prosecute the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rule 5(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 prescribed that a joint meeting be held of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and then only gang chart should be approved. However, from the perusal of the gang chart it is evident that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nodal Officer has not put any date under his signature whereas the In-charge Inspector has signed on 7.11.2023 and Circle Officer has singed on 9.11.2023.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out the page no. 29 of the paper book wherein Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and District Magistrate, Pratapgarh have signed on 10.11.2023 and dates put under their signature are clearly visible.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is only case against the petitioner and therefore, Gangsters Act cannot be invoked.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though the petitioners have been accorded bail in the cases as shown in the gang chart but the law is already settled that even on the basis of 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 petitioners that based on two cases, the imposition of Section 2/3 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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 5.12.2023
Anuj Singh
