Allahabad High Court
Amit Yadav @ Nangu @ Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:65036-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7743 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amit Yadav @ Nangu @ Amit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kinkar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
(2) This petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned First Information Report No. 0419 of 2023, dated 18.9.2023 lodged by opposite party no. 3 against the Petitioner under sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters And Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station-Inayatnagar, District-Ayodhya, contained here in as Annexure No. 1 so for relates to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing opposite parties not to arrest the Petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report No. 0419 of 2023, dated 18.9.2023 lodged by opposite party no. 3 against the Petitioner under sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station-Inayatnagar, District-Ayodhya."
(3) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the gang-chart prepared by the Police, the petitioner is accused in only one case. In the said case, the petitioner has already been granted bail by the competent Court. Moreover, he has been falsely implicated in the said base case.
(4) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though the petitioner has been accorded bail in the case 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 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that based on one 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."
(5) 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.
(6) The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
Darpan Sharma
