Bablu Ahmad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9711 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bablu Ahmad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 April, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63489-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7465 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Bablu Ahmad And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioarari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.03.2025 registered as Crime No. 0074 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chhavni, District Basti;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the Petitioners in pursuance impugned F.I.R. 19.03.2025 registered as Crime No. 0074 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chhavni, District Basti."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners are respectable, law-abiding citizens with no antecedents of criminal activity, and are in no manner associated with any gang or anti-social organization. It is contended that they have been falsely implicated solely on the basis of two prior criminal cases in which they have already been granted bail by this Hon?ble Court.It is further submitted that the so-called gang-chart, which forms the foundation of the impugned FIR, was prepared in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Rules, 2021?). The chart allegedly contains erroneous and incomplete information.Additionally, the FIR merely mentions invocation of Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act, 1986?), but fails to specify under which of the enumerated sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(13) the petitioners? conduct allegedly falls. Such vagueness, it is contended, renders the FIR fundamentally defective. The petitioners are engaged in a bona fide poultry business involving the lawful purchase and distribution of chickens across several districts including Gonda, Sultanpur, Gorakhpur, Ayodhya, and Basti. There is no allegation or evidence to indicate that they have derived any unlawful pecuniary gain or attempted to instill fear or insecurity in society. The FIR, it is urged, is the result of a malicious prosecution and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing and defended the registration of the FIR by contending that the offences alleged are grave and fall squarely within the purview of the Gangsters Act, 1986. He relies on the gang-chart prepared against the petitioners, and invokes Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021, to submit that the Act can be applied even in cases where there is only a solitary instance of grave offence. He points out that the two base cases relied upon to invoke the Gangsters Act are Crime No. 145 of 2024 under Sections 395, 412, and 201 of IPC and Crime No. 146 of 2024 under Sections 395, 397, 398, 412 of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, both registered at P.S. Chhavni, District Basti. He further relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein it was categorically held that even a single FIR or charge sheet may suffice to invoke the Gangsters Act provided the elements of anti-social activity as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act are met. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"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. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds it apposite to refer to Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021, which clearly states:

"22. Criminal history not mandatory and sections of the Act can be imposed in the course of investigation- (1) A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, and First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act.

(2) The Act may also come into force on a single prosecution in certain class of cases, such as -

if it appears that the gang has committed a single offence mentioned in Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of the Penal Code out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, which is presently under investigation, and the offence under this Act is being proved by collected evidence, then along with the criminal act under consideration, the gang-chart should also be approved by the concerned Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate involved in the investigation of the said offence and the provisions of the Act can be imposed while investigating both the offences together in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, the charge-sheet can be sent to the Special Court constituted under the Act."

6. In the present case, it is not disputed that one of the offences forming the base of gangster proceedings is under Section 395 of IPC, a cognizable and heinous offence expressly mentioned in Rule 22(2). The contention that multiple FIRs are essential for invocation of the Act stands negated by both statutory language and judicial pronouncements. Hence, we find no merit in the argument that the Gangsters Act has been invoked arbitrarily or illegally in the present matter.

7. In light of the legal position and the specific facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The petitioners? claim for quashing the FIR lacks merit and substance.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent court for appropriate relief, including bail, which, if filed, shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made herein.

9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are confined solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025

NLY

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)