# Jitendra Paswan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1828
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8881 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-paswan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53361
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986-Sections
2
&
3(1)
-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021- Rule 5
(3) (A)---It is not disputed that the earlier writ
petition was allowed on procedural grounds and
that liberty was granted to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with law. From the
record, it appears that the authorities have now
complied
with
the
requisite
procedural
mandates including completion of base case
investigations,
preparation
of
gang-chart,
convening of a joint meeting, approval by the
District Magistrate after application of mind. The
petitioner has a long-standing criminal history
and the allegations pertain to organized crime
across multiple districts---No procedural illegality
or arbitrariness has been demonstrated in the
initiation of the present proceedings under the
Act, 198.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

1828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 ii)
The
applicant
will
not
pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution
witnesses.

 iii) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed.

[61] In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

[62]
It
is
made
clear
that
observations made in granting bail to the
applicant shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1828
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8881 of 2025

Jitendra Paswan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajit Narain Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986-Sections
2
&
3(1)
-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021- Rule 5
(3) (A)---It is not disputed that the earlier writ
petition was allowed on procedural grounds and
that liberty was granted to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with law. From the
record, it appears that the authorities have now
complied
with
the
requisite
procedural
mandates including completion of base case
investigations,
preparation
of
gang-chart,
convening of a joint meeting, approval by the
District Magistrate after application of mind. The
petitioner has a long-standing criminal history
and the allegations pertain to organized crime
across multiple districts---No procedural illegality
or arbitrariness has been demonstrated in the
initiation of the present proceedings under the
Act, 198.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2013
INSC 510

2. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P. AIR 1987 All
235

3. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs St. of U.P. 2023 SCC
Online All 143

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Anil Kumar -X, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.N. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondents.

2. The present writ petition has
been filed seeking quashing of the
impugned First Information Report dated
13.04.2025, registered as Case Crime
No.0244 of 2025, under Sections 3(1), 2(b)
(i), 2 (b) (xi), and 2 (b) (xxv) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 19861 at Police
Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur, in
respect of the petitioner. A further prayer
has been made for issuance of a direction
5 All. Jitendra Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1829
restraining the respondents from
arresting the petitioner pursuant to the said
FIR.

3. The brief facts as per prosecution
case are that the fourth respondent has lodged
the impugned FIR against the petitioner and
six other persons with allegation that one
Ram Pravesh Rajbhar is leader of gang and
the petitioner is a member of the aforesaid
gang. The members of the gang have formed
an organized criminal gang and are actively
operating at the district level. This gang, for
their
financial
and
worldly
gain,
on
16.05.2022, assaulted a person and looted ₹7
lakhs near DPS School, Maniram, resulting in
Case Crime No.230/2022 under Section 394
IPC being registered at the local police
station. During the investigation, based on the
arrest of the accused and supporting
evidence, Section 394 IPC was replaced with
Section 395 IPC, and charge sheets were
submitted on 14.09.2022 and 31.03.2023.
The FIR further discloses that due to criminal
acts of the accused, a sense of fear prevails
among the general public, and the society is
being
adversely
affected.
After
due
examination of the records and the crimes
committed by the gang, all documents were
prepared and sent to the Nodal Officer by the
then Officer-in-Charge Sanjay Mishra. The
Nodal Officer prepared the gang chart and
forwarded it for further action and approval.
The said gang chart was approved in a joint
meeting of the Senior Superintendent of Police
and the District Magistrate. In the offences
listed in the gang chart the charge sheets have
been filed which are pending consideration
before the competent court. The free
movement of this gang is not in the interest of
society. It is extremely necessary to take action
against the gang under the Act, 1986.

4. The impugned FIR is assailed
primarily on the ground that the allegation
contained in the FIR is totally false and
baseless. Earlier, for the same set of
allegations, gangster proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner and other coaccused, culminating in registration of FIR
dated 28.12.2023, in Case Crime No. 0752
of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the Act,
1986 at the same police station. The FIR
was challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.4991 of 2024, which was
allowed by a Division Bench of this Court
on the ground that the Competent Authority
had failed to apply its independent mind
while recommending and approving the
gang-chart, in violation of Rule 5 (3) (A) of
the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 20212. The
gang-chart was forwarded and approved by
the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in a
summary manner, without convening a
joint meeting.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that similar procedural
lapses exist in the present proceedings also,
which warrants interference by this Court.
He submits that while recommending and
approving the gang-chart, the Competent
Authority has utterly failed to apply its
independent mind. The authorities have
again failed to comply with the provisions
enumerated in the Rules, 2021 thereby
rendering the invocation of the Act, 1986
against the petitioner as unsustainable. He
has placed reliance upon Rule 5(3) (a) of
the Rules, 2021, which provides that the
gang-chart will not be approved summarily
but after due discussion in a joint meeting
of the Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police/
Superintendent of Police. He submits that
Rule 17 of the Rules, 2021 provides that
the Competent Authority shall be bound to
exercise its own independent mind while
forwarding the gang-chart but in the
1830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case, they have not applied their
own mind.

6. Per contra, learned AGA-I has
vehemently opposed the writ petition and
submits that the Division Bench, while
quashing the earlier FIR, had granted
liberty to the State to initiate fresh
proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
He submitted that the authorities have now
fully complied the Rules, 2021. A joint
meeting was duly convened on 12.03.2025,
wherein the District Magistrate opined that
sufficient material existed to invoke the
Gangsters proceeding against the petitioner.
A gang-chart was accordingly prepared after
considering the relevant base cases. He
further submitted that the petitioner has a
criminal history of six cases and is alleged to
be a member of a gang active in multiple
districts including Gorakhpur, Siddharth
Nagar, and Maharajganj.

7. Heard rival submissions and
perused the record.

8. Before delving into the facts of
the instant case, it is apposite to consider
the relevant definition of "Gang" given
under Section 2 (b) of the Act, 1986, which
reads as under:

 "2(b) "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, namely

 (i) offences punishable under
Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code, or
 (ii) distilling or manufacturing or
storing or transporting or importing or
exporting or selling or distributing any liquor,
or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other
intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any
plant, in contravention of any of the provisions
of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
or any other law for the time being in force, or

 (iii)
occupying
or
taking
possession
of
immovable
property
otherwise than in accordance with law, or
setting-up
false
claims,
for
title
or
possession of immovable property whether
in himself or any other person, or

 (iv) preventing or attempting to
prevent any public servant or any witness
from discharging his lawful duties, or

 (v) offences punishable under the
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Act, 1956, or

 (vi) offences punishable under
Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act,
1867, or

 (vii) preventing any person from
offering bids in auction lawfully conducted,
or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf
of any Government department, local body
or public or private undertaking, for any
lease or rights or supply of goods or work
to be done, or

 (viii) preventing or disturbing the
smooth running by any person of his lawful
business, profession, trade or employment
or any other lawful activity connected
therewith, or

 (ix) offences punishable under
Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, or
5 All. Jitendra Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1831
in preventing or obstructing any public
election being lawfully held, by physically
preventing the voter from exercising his
electoral rights, or

 (x) inciting others to resort to
violence to disturb communal harmony, or

 (xi) creating panic, alarm or
terror in public, or

 (xii) terrorising or assaulting
employees or owners or occupiers of public
or private undertakings or factories and
causing mischief in respect of their
properties, or

 (xiii) inducing or attempting to
induce any person to go to foreign
countries on false representation that any
employment, 12 trade or profession shall
be provided to him in such foreign country,
or

 (xiv) kidnapping or abducting any
person with intent to extort ransom, or

 (xv)
diverting
or
otherwise
preventing any aircraft or public transport
vehicle from following its scheduled
course;

 (xvi) offences punishable under
the Regulation of Money Lending Act,
1976;

 (xvii)
illegally
transporting
and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in
acts in contravention of the provisions in
the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955
and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960;

 (xviii)
human
trafficking
for
purposes
of
commercial
exploitation,
bonded
labour,
child
labour,
sexual
exploitation,
organ
removing
and
trafficking, beggary and the like activities;

 (xix) offences punishable under
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1966;

 (xx) printing, transporting and
circulating of fake Indian currency notes;

 (xxi) involving in production, sale
and distribution of spurious drugs;

 (xxii) involving in manufacture,
sale and transportation of arms and
ammunition in contravention of Sections 5,
7 and 12 of the Arms Act, 1959;

 (xxiii) felling or killing for
economic gains, smuggling of products in
contravention of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 and The Wildlife Protection Act,
1972;

 (xxiv) offences punishable under
the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act,
1979;

 (xvv) indulging in crimes that
impact security of State, public order and
even tempo of life. "

9. The origin of the Act, 1986 was
a genesis of 'desperate times need,
desperate measures'. It was enacted to curb
the rise of organized crime and anti-social
behaviour in the State and to facilitate
deterrent action against repeat offenders
and criminal syndicates, whereas the Rules,
2021 have been promulgated under the Act,
1986, which provides detailed procedure
for preparing a gang-chart, including
obtaining
approvals
from
designated
officers and ensuring the base cases are
1832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supported by charge sheets and recovery
memos. Rule 5 (3) (A) mandates the
convening of a joint meeting before the
chart is approved by the District Magistrate
or Commissioner of Police.

10. The primary objective of the
Act, 1986 is to prevent organized crimes
and gangster activities within the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It aims to dismantle criminal
networks and prevent the growth of illicit
activities. The Act, 1986 empowers law
enforcement agencies and State authorities
to
take
necessary
measures
against
gangsters to ensure the safety and security
of the citizens. It mandates provisions for
the identification, tracking, and preventive
detention of repeat offenders. By detaining
repeat offenders, it seeks to prevent
recidivism.

11. The Act, 1986 also contains
adequate provisions, which allow for the
confiscation and forfeiture of any property
obtained illegally or as a result of criminal
activity under Section 14. The provisions
are intended to target the financial gains of
the gangsters, weaken their operations and
deter others from engaging in similar antisocial activities. Under Section 5, the Act,
1986 also provides to constitute Special
Courts for the speedy trial of offences
under this Act to guarantee swift justice to
the victims. The act aims at fostering a safe
and peaceful environment in Uttar Pradesh.

12. The Act, 1986 had stood the
test of constitutional validity in the case of
Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. and
Ors.3 wherein the Apex Court, while
dealing with the question of constitutional
validity of the provisions of Act, 1986 (Act
7 of 1986) being violative of Articles 14,
21, 22(4) and 300A of the Constitution of
India, has held:-
 "44. It is a crime of a different
nature. Apart from normal criminality, the
accused is also involved in organized crime
for a different purpose and motive. The
accused persons under the Act belong to
altogether
a
different
category.
The
legislature has felt that they are to be dealt
with
in
a
different
manner
and,
accordingly, the trial is mandated to be
held by the special courts in an expeditious
manner. The intention of the legislature is
to curb such kind of organized crimes
which have become epidemic in the society.
In Kartar Singh (supra), the majority has
said, "Legislation begins where Evil
begins". The legislature, as it seems to us,
being guided by its sacrosanct duty to
protect the individual members of society to
enjoy their rights without fear and see that
some people do not become a menace to
the society in a singular or collective
manner, has enacted such a provision. In
this context, we may refer with profit to the
authority in The Works Manager, Central
Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath
and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 95, wherein a
three-Judge Bench, though in a different
context, has observed that certain types of
enactments are more responsive to some
urgent social demands and also have more
immediate and visible impact on social
vices by operating more directly to achieve
social reforms. We have referred to the
said observations only to highlight how the
legislature in a welfare State immediately
steps in for social reforms to eradicate
social vices. Similarly, sometimes it is
compelled to take steps to control the
frenzied criminal action of some anti-social
people. In the case at hand it can be stated
with certitude that the legislature has felt
that there should be curtailment of the
activities of the gangsters and, accordingly,
provided for stern delineation with such
activities to establish stability in society
5 All. Jitendra Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1833
where citizens can live in peace and enjoy
a secured life. It has to be kept uppermost
in mind that control of crime by making
appropriate
legislation
is
the
most
important duty of the legislature in a
democratic polity, for it is necessary to
scuttle serious threats to the safety of the
citizens. Therefore, the legislature has, in
actuality, responded to the actual feelings
and requirements of the collective."

13. In Ashok Kumar Dixit v.
State of U.P.4 it was held by this Court
that for taking action under the Act, 1986
the authority must be prima facie satisfied
regarding the involvement of the accused
and an overt act is not mandatory, a
reasonable
and
proximate
connection
between the occurrence and the activity of
a person sought to be apprehended is
enough to prove active complicity. For
ready reference, the relevant portion of the
judgement is reproduced herein under.

 "For booking a person under the
provisions of the Act the authorities have to
be prima facie satisfied that a person has
acted. The authority has to be satisfied that
there is a reasonable and proximate
connection between the occurrence and the
activity of the person sought to be
apprehended and that such activities were
to achieve undue temporal, physical,
economic or other advantage. There need
not be any overt or positive act of the
person intended to be apprehended at the
place. It is enough to prove active
complicity which has a bearing on the
crime."

14. In Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of
UP5 it has been recently held by the Apex
Court that a gang can be recognized under
Section 2 (b) even if there is no actual
disturbance of public order, as long as the
gang's objective is to obtain undue advantage
through anti-social acts. For ready reference,
the relevant portion is reproduced herein
under.

 "So far as the disturbance of public
order is concerned, as already noticed
hereinabove, a group of persons can have
two alternate objects to "For booking a
person under the provisions of the Act the
authorities have to be prima facie satisfied
that a person has acted. The authority has to
be satisfied that there is a reasonable and
proximate
connection
between
the
occurrence and the activity of the person
sought to be apprehended and that such
activities were to achieve undue temporal,
physical, economic or other advantage.
There need not be any overt or positive act of
the person intended to be apprehended at the
place. It is enough to prove active complicity
which has a bearing on the crime."qualify as
a gang under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986:
They may have for their object the
disturbance of public order or the gaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or
another advantage for a member of the group
or any other person. All that is necessary is
that to attain either of the two objects, the
group of persons, acting singly or in unison,
should indulge in one of the enumerated antisocial activities envisaged under various
clauses of sub-Section (b) of Section 2 of the
Act of 1986."

15. However, the answer to the
moot
question
would
lie
in
the
interpretation accorded to the definitions
(supra) in conformity with the object and
intent of the Act, 1986 and this would have
to be examined in juxtaposition with the
FIR.

16. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the earlier writ petition was
1834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowed on procedural grounds and that
liberty was granted to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with law.
From the record, it appears that the
authorities have now complied with the
requisite procedural mandates including
completion of base case investigations,
preparation of gang-chart, convening of
a joint meeting, approval by the District
Magistrate after application of mind.
The petitioner has a long-standing
criminal history and the allegations
pertain
to
organized
crime
across
multiple districts.

17. In view of the above, the
submission of the learned counsel the
petitioner, that he has been falsely
implicated in all the cases due to political
rivalry, is not sustainable as in majority of
the criminal cases, which form part of his
long criminal history, are of similar nature
and encompasses ingredients of criminality.
Suffice to say that there can be no smoke
without fire.

18. Upon careful consideration of
the record, the legal provisions, and the
binding
precedents,
we
are
of
the
considered opinion that no procedural
illegality
or
arbitrariness
has
been
demonstrated in the initiation of the present
proceedings under the Act, 1986. The
impugned FIR does not call for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

19. The writ petition, being devoid
of merit, is hereby dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36693 of 2024

Sitam @ Prince Minor ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amit Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Procedure - Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 210 &
213 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, Sections 31, 33 & 42A
- Cognizance - Power of Special Court -
Whether Special Judge under POCSO Act
can summon an accused not chargesheeted on the basis of victim's statement
under Section 183 BNSS - Held, Special
Court
derives
cognizance
power
exclusively from Section 33 POCSO Act; it
may take cognizance only upon complaint
or police report, not upon its own
"knowledge"
-
Section
210
BNSS
inapplicable in view of Section 42A POCSO
Act - Summoning order based on victim's
statement
under
Section
183
BNSS
unsustainable - Matter remanded for
fresh order. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9)

HELD:
After hearing the rival submissions extended by
learned counsel for the parties, one thing is
crystal clear that there is slight difference
between the normal procedure available under
BNSS, 2023 as well as in comparison to the
procedure available under POCSO Act, 2012.
However, it is mentioned under Section 31 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 that application of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 to proceeding before a Special
Court shall be applicable, is related to the
procedure for commencement of trial so far as
regarding the procedure for taking cognizance
of offence, it is specifically mentioned under
Section 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 and so far as