Latest news with #UPGangstersandAnti-SocialActivities(Prevention)Act
Hans India
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling
Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.
Time of India
08-06-2025
- Time of India
In Noida, after 8 yrs in jail, man pleads guilty but walks free
Noida: A shift from denial to admission of crime helped a Dadri resident walk free after spending over eight years in jail. Gulfam, alias Tota, who initially sought trial under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, changed his stance by pleading guilty in the court of the additional sessions and district judge Abhishek Pandey. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 4, the court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of eight years, 5 months and 11 days. This was exactly the period Gulfam had already spent in jail. So, the order effectively paved the way for his release. Dadri Police had arrested Gulfam on Dec 9, 2016. He was named in an FIR along with four others — Furkan, Aurangzeb, Chand, and Irshad — for their involvement in kidnapping for ransom, creating terror, attempted murder, and loot. The prosecution told the court that Gulfam led the gang, with four separate cases registered against him across Noida. Apart from Gulfam, the others remained untraceable. During the course of the hearing, constable Mukesh Kumar produced copies of the gangster chart, FIR, and general diary, pushing for a strict punishment for Gulfam. While pursuing the arrest of other gang members, Gulfam requested for separate trial proceedings, which continued over the next few years. Eventually, he pleaded guilty under Section 313 of CrPC. Gulfam's counsel sought leniency, citing his humble background and the time he had already served behind the bars. The court agreed to adjust the sentence to match his jail term. "Additionally, the convict is directed to pay a fine of Rs 5,000, failing which he has to serve an additional seven days in jail," the court said.
United News of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC allows Abbas Ansari to stay 3 nights at Ghazipur home while visiting constituency
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday modified the interim bail conditions of Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, permitting him to stay at his residence in Ghazipur for up to three nights whenever he travels to his constituency, Mau, while maintaining that the stay must not be used for public meetings. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing Ansari's plea seeking relaxation in the bail terms earlier imposed in a case registered under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 'Having regard to the difficulties being experienced by the petitioner while visiting his constituency, clause 2, para 6 of order dated 7 March is modified to the limited extent that when the petitioner visits his constituency, he may stay in the night at his residence in Ghazipur,' the bench ordered. 'Such stay shall not exceed three nights (initially), and shall not be for the purpose of any public meeting at the residence.' Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ansari, urged the court to consider the practical challenges in travelling from Lucknow where Ansari is currently required to reside to Mau, which is over 300 kilometers away. He submitted that since the grant of interim bail in March, Ansari had not left Lucknow. "Since your lordships have said I can only go to constituency, I can't go to my home... [if I go to constituency] how do I stay? Where do I stay? I will have to come back," Sibal said. Initially, Justice Kant remarked, 'It's better you don't go there for some time. Your family can come and meet you in Lucknow.' However, the bench eventually agreed to allow a limited stay at Ghazipur, subject to restrictions. When Sibal objected to the three-night cap, arguing that Ansari had complied fully with the earlier bail conditions, Justice Kant responded: 'Nobody spends this much time in constituency. Three nights we are permitting.' Earlier, ASG KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, placed a status report in sealed cover, which the Court opened and read during the proceedings. Justice Kant noted, 'There is nothing confidential. Only issue appears to be that he is not attending in some criminal proceedings and trial is getting delayed,' adding that the delays could be linked to the restrictions imposed by the bail conditions. The Court directed that a copy of the status report be shared with Ansari's counsel and asked for a reply-affidavit addressing the concerns raised in the report. Background: An FIR was registered against Abbas Ansari and others on August 31, 2024, at PS Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act. It was alleged that Ansari was part of a gang formed for financial and other unlawful benefits, involving extortion and intimidation. Ansari's initial bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court, directing him to approach the High Court first. After the Allahabad High Court dismissed his plea in December 2024, citing his alleged gang leadership and multiple pending cases, Ansari approached the apex court again. On March 7, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail, imposing stringent conditions including a bar on leaving Lucknow, with limited exception to visit his constituency Mau upon prior intimation to the trial court and local police. The Court also restrained him from making any public statements related to sub judice matters. The Court has now posted the matter for further hearing.
