While pinpointing the loopholes in the implementation of the law, the Allahabad High Court had on March 19, 2021 in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled Nishant @ Nishu v. State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 14323 of 2021 and 3 others has taken a very serious note of “half backed” gang-charts being filed under the UP Gangster Act 1986, that ultimately helps alleged gangsters in easily obtaining bail”, thereby threatening the order of the civil society. It has to be noted that this notable judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed specifically that in the age of internet where information of entire world is on one’s finger tips, the concerned authorities are expected to prepare extensive gang-charts that will help the Court to effectively adjudicate bail pleas. While launching a scathing attack on the sheer casual and careless attitude, the Bench observed that, “The callous and careless approach in preparing the gang chart would not only adversely affect the prospects of criminal prosecution against that individual, who are harden criminals but also the very object of the enactment would also go haywire. The accused would have an easy access of the bails from the law courts.”
To start with, after hearing the submissions of respective learned counsels for the different applicants of their respective bail applications, learned A.G.A and perusing the records of the case, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “Since all these above mentioned bail applications suffers from same vice of law i.e ‘incomplete and defective gang chart’ which does not indicate the accused’s complete past credentials, giving ample room for miscarriage of justice, resultantly, the accused-applicant tends to be bailed out easily. Additionally, this court purposes to decide all the four bail applications on merits by a common order.”
For the sake of clarity, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “The present order is in two parts, in the earlier part, all the four bail applications are decided on merits and in the later part, there is discussion/judgment on defective gang-chart and its adverse impact on bail as well as trial of the accused concern. Before deciding the cases on merits, it is imperative to give factual narration of the issue of the respective bail applications.”
Of course, the Bench then states in para 4 that, “Applicant Nishant @ Nishu is behind the bars since 29.9.2020 in connection with Case Crime No. 433/2020 U/s 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.”
More revealingly, the Bench then brings out in para 5 that, “Learned Counsel states that the gang chart annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit shows that Usman @ Sheru is its gang leader and the applicant has been shown as its active member of that gang. Only ONE case is shown in the gang chart to the credit of the applicant at Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.”
While narrating the applicant’s contention for bail, the Bench then envisages in para 6 that, “On this, it has been contended by learned counsel that since only one case is shown in the gang chart, having Case Crime No. 306/2020 on which the applicant is on bail. The copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit. Thus on the above factual premises, it has been argued that, on account of singular case in which the applicant has already been bailed out and have never misused the liberty of bail. Besides this, it is further submitted that there is no justifiable reason for the prosecution to implicate the applicant in U.P. Gangsters Act by imposing stringent condition and branding the applicant as its gang member. Thus applicant deserves to be bailed out.”
Proceeding ahead, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, “Similarly the accused of Bail Application No. 15138/2021, is Amit, the applicant facing incarceration since 16.8.2020 in connection with Case Crime No. 274/2020 U/s 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Madrak District Aligarh.”
Of course, the Bench then also brings out in para 8 that, “Submission advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant, after drawing attention of the court, the gang chart (Annexure No.2) which shows that he is member of a alleged gang and only TWO cases are shown in the chart to his credit. Argued by the counsel for the applicant that he is enjoying his freedom by way of bail in both the cases and has never misused the liberty so granted to him. The bail orders are annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit, and thus, submitted that the applicant deserves to be bailed out in the instant case too.”
Moving on, the Bench then also reveals in para 9 that, “In this series, yet another case on behalf of KASHISH SRIVASTAV, who is behind the bars since 5.8.2020 in relation to Case Crime No. 290/2020 U/s 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Cantt, District Prayagraj (Allahabad). After showing the gang chart (Annexure No.2), contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that only FOUR cases are shown in the chart. The applicant is on bail in all the four cases by different courts. Bail orders are annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit. Learned Counsel has toed same lines of arguments as his predecessors and tried to impress upon the court that the applicant too is entitled for bail.”
Furthermore, the Bench then states in para 10 that, “Last case in this chain is on behalf of NAUSHAD, the accused/applicant, who is facing prosecution by way of Case Crime No. 590/2020 U/s 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Fatehpur, District Saharanpur.”
It would be pertinent to mention here that it is then stated in para 11 that, “The gang-chart annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit clearly indicates that there are only TWO cases to the credit of the applicant and on different occasions in both these cases he was granted bail. The bail orders are annexed as Annexure No. 3 and 4 to the affidavit. Thus argued by the counsel that he has not misused the liberty of bail and as such, he is entitled for bail in the instant case too.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then alarmingly observes in para 12 that, “Thus from the above, it is clear that in all the four bail applications, the gang-chart which were annexed clearly indicates that less than five cases are to the credit of respective accused applicants and in all those cases the applicants were on bail but the informants of respective FIRs after clubbing few of the previous cases(not mentioned in the gang chart) allegedly branded the accused/applicants as member/or the leader of a particular gang, who are indulge in committing heinous offences, through their illegal organization, against innocent persons of the society. They all are as per habit commit serious and heinous offences of different types and shades. It has been argued by the learned counsels for the applicants that informants of these FIRs are police personnels(mostly SHOs of the police station), after over-stepping their powers vested in them and with motive to saddle the applicants with additional criminal liability, have illegally fasten more stringent prosecution by way of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It is argued that instant prosecution is nothing but gross misuse of powers vested in them (informant), which was later on blindly supported and approved by the local police and administrative superior authorities while approving the gang chart.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 13 that, “Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the respective accused/applicants, after putting the record straight. It has been contended by learned A.G.A. that submissions advanced by various counsels for the applicants are factually incorrect and wrong. All the applicants are harden and habitual offenders, involved in an organized criminal activities posing serious threat to the society. It has been contended that :-
(a) The applicant Nishant @ Nishu in addition to the cases shown in the gang chart, he has got 15 other cases to his credit, which is clear from his bail rejection order. A person who is involved in 15+ cases, deserves no sympathy from the Court.
(b) The applicant Amit too is involved in two other cases, in addition to the cases shown in his gang chart.
(c) Accused Kashish Srivastav, the third applicant is involved in three other cases in addition to the cases shown in his gang chart. Thus in total the number of cases swelled from four to seven cases.
(d) And at the end, the applicant Naushad in all, there are EIGHT cases to his credit, though the gang-chart has shown only SIX cases.”
While hitting the nail on the head, the Bench then very rightly and commendably holds in para 14 that, “Indeed, in opinion of the Court, it is a cabbalistic and mysterious situation where the applicants at the stage of their bail before this Court are taken by surprise by the State. This is beyond the settled tenets of fair play and equality. No accused shall be taken by surprise. The Court is failed to appreciate the alleged impediment in preparing full and complete gang chart of that bunch of alleged outlawed persons. The prosecution has to stick upon the stand taken by them from the day one.”
Without mincing any words, the Bench then also hastens to add in para 15 that, “It is not the discretion of the prosecution to add or substract the number of cases from his gang chart according to their sweet will and at the time of consideration of their bail applications, serve out those cases which are not in the chart. The Court is at loss to appreciate this practice by the prosecution. Learned A.G.A. too has failed to solve this puzzle and lift the veil from this uncanny situation. The Court records its deep anguish, resentment to such type of hide and seek practice by none other than the State (Prosecutor) itself. The Court takes it like that, the prosecutor are hiding the cards in their sleeves so as to poison and bias the judicial mind of the Court against the applicant and succeeds in getting their bail applications rejected showing and swelling the number of cases against the applicant. This is explicitly a malpractice on the part of the prosecution, who instead of giving holistic view regarding criminal antecedents of the concern person, has given only a piecemeal and incomplete picture in their respective gang chart. The Court does not want to become a party to such type of underhand dealing and short coming on the part of prosecutor. After assessing the facts of the case and the antecedents of accused persons, this court is of the considered opinion that all the applicants namely; (i)Amit, (ii)Kashish Srivastav and (iii)Naushad be released on bail. The bail applications of above named accused/applicants stands allowed.”
Be it noted, the Bench then points out in para 17 that, “So far as the applicant Nishant@Nishu is concerned, since there are 15+ cases are shown in the bail rejection order, this court cannot shut its eyes having long criminal history. Thus learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the antecedents of applicant Nishant @ Nishu after annexing relevant bail orders/trial judgments and the stage of the different trials, within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within same period with revised gang chart with full details. List this bail application of Nishant @ Nishu only in the second week of July, 2021 before appropriate Court for consideration of his bail.”
While intending to decide the second part of the issue, the Bench then quite forthrightly says in para 18 that, “After deciding the above mentioned bail applications, the Court is saddled with more important question of law, which indeed is boggling to the Court, that is to say, incomplete and half backed gang-chart of individual accused by which the accused/applicant takes out the benefit from the same and gets easily bailed out. The said gang-chart is prepared by concern informant (mostly SHOs of the police station), which was later on affirmed and approved by higher police as well as administrative authorities of the district branding that individual as ‘Gangster’.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then specifies in para 19 that, “The basic aim and objective of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is to make special provisions by giving sharp teeth to the police to curb and cope with “gangsters and their anti-social activities” and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The State legislature brought into force the above mentioned legislation on 15th January, 1986 with a view to handle the menace of ‘Organized Crime’ in the State in more effective way. The Act is exhaustive and defines gangsterism and gangsters therein. Section 23 of the above Act, U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986 empowers the State Government may, by notification make RULES for carrying out the purposes and object of the enactment in more uniform and definite manner, ruling out any grain of arbitrariness in the procedure.”
More crucially, the Bench then points out in para 20 that, “Learned counsels for the rival parties are not at variance in informing the Court that no RULES have been framed even after lapse of 35 years of the said enactment by the State Government giving a ample space to the police authorities to misuse the powers and harass innocents according to their whims and capricious. The Court has experienced that these police authorities have fasten plural numbers of proceedings under the aforesaid Act, without waiting the final outcome from the law courts with regard to the earlier proceedings.”
While striking the right chord, the Bench then maintained in para 21 that, “Taking the advantage of this void when there are no rules or procedure for the present Act, only, an incomplete and half backed gang-charts were prepared by the informants of different bail applications which were later on mechanically approved by the responsible higher police authorities of the district, against that Gang. Accordingly, the named accused are fasten with additional criminal liability by way of lodging of the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986. This Court is of considered opinion that without being tested in the crucible of its trial before the competent law court, it would not serve the objective and purpose of present enactment merely by adding the numbers of proceedings under present Act or other ancillary enactments.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then reveals in para 22 that, “As mentioned above, since the features are in fluid stage, different benches of this Court since 2003 while deciding various proceedings, have cautioned the police and executive time and again, that no case of false implication shall recur either by any malpractice or motivated prosecution by the police authorities.” It is further mentioned that in response to these directions of this Court, Principal Secretary, Home and the then D.G. Police vide his letter dated 24.10.2003 wrote the detailed letter.
Simply put, the Bench then states in para 23 that, “Here, it is pertinent to mention here that above letters were issued by the D.G. Police and thereafter G.O. Dated 02.01.2004, pursuant to the direction given by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 6249/2003 In re: Amar Nath Dubey Vs. State of U.P.”
Needless to say, it is then conceded by the Bench in para 24 that, “Noticing the above letter, and the direction contained in the order of Division Bench of this Court, Principal Secretary (Homes) issued yet another set of procedure/instruction mentioning therein the manner in which gang chart in relation to offences under the Gangsters Act has to be prepared. These were all ad hoc practices adopted by higher bureaucracy just to make a stop gap arrangement and an effort to plug the void, in place of formal Rules as contemplated by Section 23 of the Act. Clause 2 of these instructions would indicate the details of information that has to be contained therein.” It is also stated that the said instruction issued by Principal Secretary Homes, in the shape of Government Order is extracted herein as stated quite in detail in para 24 itself.
Interestingly enough, the Bench then makes it clear in para 25 that, “I have perused the above Government communications in this regard. Its paragraph nos. 2,4,5 and 6 are relevant for the present purpose. From this communications, it is clear that for the purposes of additional prosecution under U.P. Gangsters Act, only with regard to those cases against the individual, in which charge-sheet has been submitted by the police. Those cases which have ended into acquittal or Final Report has been submitted shall be discounted from the gang chart. Para 3 of the above letter states, that after clubbing all the previous criminal cases/additional criminal case under the present Act a gang chart may be prepared by the police. Pending earlier proceeding under the present Gangsters Act, if subsequent or successive proceedings under the present Act is proposed, then earlier cases shall not be included in succeeding gang chart. In para 4 of the letter, the concern S.H.O. of the Police Station is given responsibility to prepare the gang-chart of the concern individual. After the preparation said chart would be produced before the C.O./Addl. S.P. for its approval and thereafter, S.P./S.S.P. of the District shall give final shape to the gang chart. The concern S.P./S.S.P. would look into the proposed gang chart and after due modification (if at all is needed) give a final shape to the said gang-chart. So far as the successive prosecution under present Act is concerned, as mentioned above, while preparing the earlier gang chart, the cases shown in it shall be discounted in the second/successive gang chart.”
Quite aptly, the Bench then states in para 26 that, “At this juncture, this court proposes to mention the facts of Criminal Misc. Bail Application no 14323 of 2021 in re: Nishant @ Nishu Vs. State of U.P. as a sample. Table hereinbelow is extracted from his bail rejection order of the accused-applicant shows that there are as many as 15 cases are shown to his credit, which relates to the year 2018 and 2020. The list shows that he or the gang was mostly operational in different police stations of Muzzafarnagar and only one case at police station Ranipur, Haridwar. In the year 2018, the police has instituted one case, having case crime No.1203 of 2018 u/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Muzzafarnagar against accused Nishant@Nishu with regard to above case-crime, the applicant approached this Court, seeking bail. In the years 2019, bail order of Criminal Misc. Bail application No.36841 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019 (annexure 16) shows that while allowing the above bail application, this Court has opined that gang chart in above case has indicated only 5 cases to the credit of applicant and that is why he has been bailed out. However, in the rejection order table of criminal cases of Nishant @ Nishu spells out the long criminal history of the applicant, is as follows :-
Sl.No. Case Crime No. Under Sections of I.P.C. Police Station and District.
1. 846/18 392/411 IPC Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar.
2. 872/18 307 IPC Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar.
3. 873/18 25 Arms Act. Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar.
4. 211/18 393 IPC Chapaaz, Muzaffar Nagar.
5. 358/18 392 IPC Shahpur, Muzaffar Nagar.
6. 258/18 307/427 IPC Manoorpur, Muzaffar Nagar.
7. 611/18 392 IPC Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar,
8 621/18 392 IPC Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar.
9. 437/18 302, 120B IPC Ranipur, Haridwar.
10. 811/18 302 IPC Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar.
11. 346/18 414 IPC Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar.
12. 1203/18 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act. Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar.
13. 306/20 392/411 Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar.
14. 433/20 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act. Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar.
15. 347/20 2/25 Arms Act. Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar.”
Truth be told, the Bench then adds in para 27 that, “Thus, from above it is clear that there are two cases engaging U.P. Gangster Act (I) Case Crime No. 1203 of 2018 u/s 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffarnagar; (II) Case Crime No. 433 of 2020 u/s 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act Police station Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar (instant case). From the records, it is born out, that in the earlier case gang chart of five cases were shown to the credit of the applicant and that is why, he has been bailed out by the bench of this Court on 18.09.2019(Annexure-16). In subsequent case, a gang chart showing only one case ( Case Crime No. 306 of 2020 u/s 392/411 IPC Police Station Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar to the credit of the applicant and thus, as mentioned above, learned counsel for the applicant hammered his submission, relying upon only one case.”
Most crucially, the Bench then candidly holds in para 28 that, “These short-comings are sufficient to point out the alleged loopholes in execution of above G.O. dated 24.10.2003 and the G.O. dated 02.01.2004. Clubbing the number of cases of accused-applicant of above two gang charts is 5+1=6 cases in all are to the credit of applicant. Then, from where these numbers were swelled to 15 cases which finds mention in the bail rejection order? There is no proper or satisfactory and explanation to bridge this gap of 15 cases. Why all these cases were not shown in one gang chart in one go? Now, at the stage of bail, the state in order to poison the judicial mind and prejudice the court are giving the details of all these 15 cases. This is the precise question for which this court is extremely bothered and conscious. It is on the part of the alleged laxity by the author of the gang chart and thereafter a blind approval by the higher administrative and police authorities of the District, the harden accused persons, succeeds in getting the bail from the law court.”
Equally significant is what is then enunciated in para 29 that, “As mentioned above, the underline idea and objective of U.P. Gangsters Act is to curb the menace of organized crime with iron hands. The provisions of the enactment is targeted against that individual who either singly or by way of a gang is in habit of committing crime listed in sub section 2(b) of the Act. He is dreaded criminal and an incurable disease to the society. By applying the provisions of present enactment, the individual is not prosecuted or punished for those offences which he has committed but he is charged for being habitual, dreaded and harden criminal who commits these offences in much more planned and organized way. It is highly risky to permit such persons to roam around freely in the open society and the innocent persons of society remain on the tentacle hooks so long as the said accused is a free man and posing serious threat to the orderly society. Thus, after applying the stringent provisions of this Act, State has got right to screw such persons, put them behind the bars and attach their ill-gotten money.”
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench then makes it a point to mention in para 30 that, “Now, reverting back to the facts of the test case. As mentioned above, that two different cases under Gangster Act were fasten against the accused individual, though from two different Police stations of district Muzaffarnagar. In the Gang chart of 2018, five cases were shown and in the instant Gang Chart only one case to his credit but, it is born out from rejection order that he has got 15 cases on his back. In the bail application, the applicant has annexed 13 bail orders granted to him by different law courts on different occasion with his tacit admission about his involvement but the benevolent informants of both these cases have shown 5+1 cases only. The D.O. Letter of D.G.P. dated 23.10.2003 and G.O. 02.01.2004 indicates that gang chart would indicate only those cases where the charge sheet have been submitted by the police. The said chart would be prepared by concerned S.H.O. of the Police Station and approved by C.O. and, thereafter, S.P./S.S.P. of the concerned district. There is a rider in the said Government communication that those cases in which earlier gang chart was prepared, shall be discounted in subsequent gang chart. Both the proceedings under U.P. Gangster Act is yet to see its final verdict. As pointed out earlier, that both these gang charts are incomplete and give only partial picture of the facts of the case. This would give rise to a room to the S.H.O./Police Personnels to misuse their power by initiating number of proceedings under above Act time and again. This Court is often experienced such type of lapses and short falls in preparation of the gang chart which contains bare skeleton of the cases and their respective numbers on which the gang chart is prepared is in most casual way and thereafter proceedings under U.P. Gangsters Act were initiated by the State.”
Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 31 that, “In the instant case, from the gang chart it is evident that the gang of which the applicant is its active member is mostly operating in district Muzaffarnagar. In the age of internet, computers and other helpful software etc. where information of entire world is on one’s finger tips with the additional platforms in the shape of D.C.R.B./S.C.R.B./N.C.R.B./C.C.T.N.S. its operation is very convenient to prepare one’s gang chart in extensive way. The callous and careless approach in preparing the gang chart would not only adversely affect the prospects of criminal prosecution against that individual, who are harden criminals but also the very object of the enactment would also go haywire. The accused would have an easy access of the bails from the law courts. Usually, the Court admits on bail either on solitary or lesser number of cases against that accused applicant in his gang chart. In the absence of full and comprehensive information regarding criminal credentials of the individual, it creates extremely awkward situation for the prosecutors even in the law courts but also consume valuable time of the courts while holding archaeological exercise to explore one’s criminal antecedents. This is totally unacceptable situation. The Court requires entire “criminal horoscope” of the individual of the past who has been charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act.”
No less significant is what is then observed in para 32 that, “Such type of incomplete or half backed gang charts is reflective of informant’s attitude and, his professional incompetence. Any material lapse in preparing the exhaustive gang chart should be plugged at the earliest and not the stage of bail. Presently, it seems that the informant either does not want to prepare the complete gang chart for any ‘particular reason’ or ‘motive’ or he has got lack of information regarding antecedents of particular individual and his modes-operandi. It is true that there shall not be repetition of case crime numbers as it may attract the vice of double jeopardy, but there is no restriction if any “addenda” is added to the gang chart spelling out his previous criminal antecedents. That would be easy for the law courts to fathom the depth and gravity of the individual seeking bail after having holistic and comprehensive picture of the criminal history. The Court expects that the gang chart must give a concrete information not only the crimes committed by him in his individual capacity but also as member of that gang. Besides this, the area of operation i.e. within the district or touching the other districts or even gone beyond the limits of the State. While considering the bail application of that accused, the Courts are also curious to know the stage of trial of other cases in which that individual is enjoying bail. The said gang chart must indicate that as to whether he has misused his liberty of bail by indulging any other offence after coming out of jail.”
It also has to be borne in mind that the Bench then holds in para 33 that, “The alleged gang is having any expertise in committing any particular type of offence or they are indulged in assorted crimes, their family background, social and financial status including his ill-gotten properties and their reputation in the locality where he normally resides. All these are material particulars, helpful while adjudicating the bail application and also during the trial.”
As a corollary to what is stated above, the Bench then held in para 34 that, “Thus, in nutshell, the Court completely discard the gang chart of accused/applicant Nishant@Nishu with the direction to the S.P. Muzaffar Nagar and informant to re-cast the fresh gang chart, mentioning above details in it, within four weeks and produce them before the Court on the next date in the second week of July, 2021 by way of supplementary affidavit.”
While issuing the much needed directions, the Bench then directs in para 35 that, “Principal Secretary(Homes) Lucknow and the Director General of Police, Lucknow are hereby directed to :-
1). Start exercise to frame proper Rules of the present enactment pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 27 of the U.P. Act 7 of 1986 latest by 31st December, 2021 positively.
2). Meanwhile, issue proper circular to all the SSP/SPs of the District to appoint any officer at least C.O. Rank, be placed in the office of S.P. , either exclusively or with additional charge to become authority concern and author of gang chart of the individual, under the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986 who shall act as Nodal Officer of all the police stations within the District. The alleged gang chart of individual shall be elaborative, comprehensive on giving all the necessary details of that accused viz (i) name, sex, permanent address (ii) Number of total cases to his credit either in his individual capacity or as member of the gang. (iii) If there are successive prosecution under the U.P. Gangster Act, then details of previous cases in the form of “Addenda” (iv) Stage of trial of those cases before the trial court. (v) Family background, his social, financial status of that accused including his ill-gotten wealth. (vi) Whether he has misused the liberty of bail granted to him earlier by the law courts and have indulged in subsequent offences. (vii) Area of operation of that gang within the district alone or in the adjoining districts or has gone beyond the limits of State and lastly types of cases, meaning thereby the gang is having expertise in committing particular type of offence or assorted crimes and lastly his general reputation in the locality. The Court requires a complete, extensive criminal dossier of that individual, with above mentioned particular.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then says in para 36 that, “The S.P/S.S.P of the district after making in depth probe and cross-check, regarding authenticity of the gang chart shall approve it after putting his signatures. Any laxity by the authority concern in preparing the gang chart would warrant serious consequences on his own shoulders.”
Adding still more, it is then stated in para 37 that, “The Special Judge(Gangster Act) which are operational in every Sessions Divisions in the State are also directed to speed up the trial and make all necessary endeavour to conclude the same within a year of submission of its charge sheet. The proceeding under the U.P. Gangster Act shall be given priority over any other trial.”
What’s more, the Bench then also adds in para 38 that, “Normally, the Court shuns and avoid to give any advice to the State agency for the initiation of successive proceedings under the U.P. Gangster Act. It may suffer from the vice of double jeopardy, but in a given and changed circumstances, they may lodge subsequent FIR under the aforesaid Act of 1986.”
To say the least, the Bench then holds in para 39 that, “The Court expects that concern responsible authorities would take the matter on highest priority and frame the rules as expected within time frame.”
Finally, it is then held in para 40 that, “Let the copy of this order be handed over to learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who shall transmit its copies to Principal Secretary(Homes), Director General of Police, Lucknow, all the S.P/S.S.Ps of the District as well as learned Sessions Judge of every Sessions Division to ensure its compliance in letter and spirit within time bound period. All the pending gang chart shall be amended accordingly.”
In conclusion, what all the Allahabad High Court has directed in this leading case as stated above must be complied with in totality. To prevent miscarriage of justice, it is imperative to follow what all has been laid down in this case so that gangsters don’t easily gets bail. It is high time and as observed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi of Allahabad High Court, the rules of UP Gangster Act, 1986 must be framed at the earliest and it has rightly specified that by 31 December, 2021 the needful be done and it certainly brooks no delay! It goes without saying that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be to ensure that the innocent are not harassed and the guilty are not let off! Rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi