Latest news with #UttarPradeshGangstersandAnti-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.
United News of India
3 days ago
- United News of India
SC grants anticipatory bail to advocate booked under Gangsters Act
New Delhi, Jun 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Advocate Sandeep Kumar, who was booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, for allegedly acting as a deed writer in certain sale transactions. A bench comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan was hearing a special leave petition filed by the advocate challenging the August 2, 2024, order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, advocate-on-record Anurag Ojha submitted that Sandeep Kumar is a practising advocate who merely rendered professional assistance in preparing the sale deeds. He argued that the invocation of the Gangsters Act against a lawyer for such services was mechanical and arbitrary. It was pointed out that two FIRs form the basis of the gang chart under the Act, but in both cases, the Allahabad High Court has already granted interim relief, a stay in one FIR and protection from coercive action in the other. Taking note of the submissions, the apex court granted interim protection from arrest. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Bench observed, 'Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession and was instrumental in the execution of two sale deeds. There can't be any occasion for the petitioner to be booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.' The Court issued notice in the matter and directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the interim, subject to his cooperation with the investigation. The matter has been listed for further hearing in the last week of August. The petitioner argued on an important legal issue whether mere consultation with or professional assistance from a lawyer in preparing sale deeds can lead to criminal proceedings under stringent laws like the Gangsters Act. UNI SNG PRS
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
7 booked under Gangsters Act for cow smuggling in Gorakhpur
Gorakhpur: The Gorakhpur police have initiated proceedings under the Gangsters Act against a seven-member gang involved in cow smuggling across multiple districts. The action is part of an ongoing anti-crime drive led by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) under the supervision of SP City Abhinav Tyagi and the Circle Officer, Cantonment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The gang, led by Anup Yadav, is accused of running a well-organized operation to derive financial and material benefits from illegal cattle trade. The other members have been identified as Satish Yadav, Sholu Yadav alias Sonu Yadav alias Virendra Yadav, Vijay Nishad, Parvez Alam, Khurshid Ansari, and Aman Kumar Shukla. According to police, the gang's activities had created fear in the local community, prompting the need for stringent legal action. A gang chart, approved by the District Magistrate, was prepared, and an FIR was registered under Sections 2(b)(I)(IV)(VIII)(XI)(XVII) and 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Several members of the group, including Anup Yadav, have existing criminal records involving charges under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Arms Act. Their operations reportedly spanned Gorakhpur, Kushinagar, and extended into Bihar. Authorities said that the actions aims at dismantling the gang's network and curb organized cattle smuggling in the region.
Hindustan Times
12-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
Umesh Pal murder case: NBW against Guddu Muslim, two other accused
A special court established to try cases related to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, on Thursday issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against Guddu Muslim, Arman and Sabir, the accused in the 2023 murder of advocate Umesh Pal and his two police guards, who are absconding, DCP (city), Prayagraj, Abhishek Bharti. A reward of ₹5 lakh each has also been announced on these three criminals. Umesh Pal, a key witness in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case, was shot dead outside his residence in Prayagraj's Sulem Sarai area on February 24, 2023. The police had filed a chargesheet against the three main accused of Atiq Ahmed's gang, Guddu Muslim, Arman and Sabir earlier. Despite extensive search operations in 14 states by the police and arrest warrants issued in seven states, they have remained out of police reach so far. All three accused are active members of slain gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed's IS-227 gang. As per the police, 15 people have been charged in this case so far. Of them, 12 accused, including Atiq Ahmed's sons Umar and Ali, are in jail. Apart from Guddu Muslim, Arman and Sabir, Atiq Ahmed's wife Shaista Parveen and his brother Ashraf's wife Zainab Fatima and sister Ayesha Noori are also absconding. A case was registered in the Dhoomanganj police station in the Umesh Pal murder case. The Airport police station is investigating the case.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Religious conversion cases: SC slams UP Police for casual approach
The Supreme Court has castigated the Uttar Pradesh police for its 'casual' and 'cavalier' approach in dealing with the liberty of citizens as it quashed the two FIRs against Vinod Bihari Lal, the director of Prayagraj-based Sam Higginbottom University (SHUATS) , in connection with allegations of illegal religious conversions. Lal, who is the director of administration at the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), was booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 based on two FIRs lodged against him for allegedly misusing around ₹34.5 crore received from foreign sources to fund illegal religious conversions. The Allahabad High Court has previously rejected Lal's pleas for relief twice. He challenged the orders in the top court in April 2023. Hearing the matter on May 23, a bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the charge sheet prepared against Lal and another accused was a reproduction of the FIR, and rules were thrown out of the window as a mechanically drawn pre-prepared gang chart was 'rubber stamped' by the competent authority without following the mandate under the Gangster Act that laid down a process of consultation followed by satisfaction of senior police officials and district authorities. Under the Act, 'gang' means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, 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, indulge in anti-social activities. Also Read | UP man shot dead during marriage procession in Shahjahanpur over alleged love affair In its FIR registered in July 2018, the UP police alleged that Lal and one David Dutta formed a gang for committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating for personal, material and pecuniary gain by forging documents. The police investigated and submitted a charge sheet pursuant to which a trial court issued non-bailable warrants against them in February 2023. Finding that nothing of this was done before registering the FIR against Lal in 2018, the bench said: 'Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty, treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.' Going through the case files, the bench said that no investigation was carried out by the police and its charge sheet, a reproduction of FIR, concluded that the accused are guilty without furnishing any documentary evidence. 'The contents of the charge sheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be 'proved',' the bench said. It reminded the investigating agency of its job to conduct an impartial investigation and leave it to the trial court to determine the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for Lal, pointed out that the FIR under Gangsters Act was based on three base FIRs registered in 2017 and while a gang requires more than one person co-accused Dutta is not named in any FIR. The bench said, 'This selective approach raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken under the Act of 1986.' Most of the FIRs, Dave alleged, were either quashed or proceedings were stayed by the top court and the Allahabad High Court. Dave also questioned the 'mechanical' preparation of the gang-chart, highlighting how at every stage, the UP Gangster Rules 2021 stood violated. The state, on the other hand, led by additional advocate general Garima Prashad, said that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and the petitioner has 32 criminal cases pending against him, where charge sheets have been filed. Also Read | UP anti-conversion law aimed at maintaining public order: HC Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only after due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, and Senior Superintendent of Police. The state failed to show any such discussion conducted before the chart was prepared. Further, Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart and prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, Also, the chart must receive due consideration and satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, The court found no material to show such an exercise was done. Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgment for the bench, said, 'A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of would like to reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.' Also Read | Constitution does not protect forced or fraudulent conversion: Allahabad HC Setting aside the HC orders, the bench held, 'Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of 2021 a safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and liberties of individuals.' Holding that the investigation by the police only ignites 'conjectures and surmises' without making out a prima facie case, the bench held that 'continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law.'
