# Satendra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 984
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27666 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satendra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54432
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. The stand taken by the State is thus founded on mere conjectures and surmises, without
any substantive evidentiary basis. The impugned orders suffer from manifest arbitrariness, nonapplication of mind, and are clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.

16. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has remained in the custody of the State since
03.06.2024, resulting in continuous deprivation of its use and consequent loss of livelihood to the
petitioner. Such deprivation, occasioned by patently illegal State action, warrants award of
reasonable compensation.The petitioner can file suit for claiming compensation for the damages
suffered.

17. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
14.08.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and the appellate order dated 27.11.2025
passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed.

19. The State authorities are directed to release forthwith the vehicle bearing registration
No. UP-70-JT-9507 in favour of the petitioner, if not already released, in accordance with law,
within a week
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 984
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27666 of 2025

Satendra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether an externment order passed u/s 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 could be
sustained when the petitioner was sought to be declared as a "Goonda" solely on the basis of two pending
criminal cases, without any conviction and without sufficient material to establish habituality within the
meaning of s. 2(b) of the Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - ss. 2(b), 3(1), 3(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148,
149, 308, 427, 323, 504, 506 - The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(1)(d) - Externment order - Goonda - Ground - Two criminal cases -
Habitual offender - Public threat - Legality of impugned orders - The petitioner challenged the
order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bulandshahr, and the
appellate order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, whereby he was externed for a period of six
months under the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - The proceedings were
4 All. Satendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
initiated on the basis of two criminal cases registered against the petitioner at Police Station
Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr - In response to the proceedings, the petitioner asserted that
the criminal cases had been falsely lodged due to personal enmity, remained pending
adjudication and had not culminated in any conviction - The authorities nevertheless concluded
that the petitioner was a habitual offender whose activities generated fear and terror in the
locality and, consequently, treated him as a "Goonda" under the Act - While State contended
that the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Goonda' u/s 2 of Act of 1970 - It was further
argued that conviction is not a prerequisite for initiating proceedings, and the pendency of
criminal cases along with material on record sufficiently establishes his habitual criminal
conduct and authorities, therefore, rightly held him to be a threat to public order and passed the
externment order, which calls for no interference.
Held: It is apparent from the statutory scheme that conviction is specifically required only in respect of
certain offences under special enactments such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act, the U.P. Excise Act, the Public Gambling Act, and the Arms Act - However, in respect of offences under
the IPC, the Act does not mandate prior conviction as a prerequisite for initiating proceedings - It is further
evident that the Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to classify a person as a
"Goonda," nor does it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining habituality - It is
apparent that Court has consistently held that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person
cannot be branded as a "Goonda" - Such punitive action of State causes irreparable damage to reputation of
such person and his family - Accordingly writ petition allowed, impugned orders quashed. [Paras 15 to 17, 19]
(E-13)

Case Law Cited
 Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 434; Lalani Pandey @
Vijay Shankar Pandey v. State of UP, 2010 SCC OnLine All 2411; Shahanshah v. State of UP and 2 Others,
Neutral Citation No.-2022:AHC:35631 decided on 16.03.2022; Govardhan v. State of UP, Neutral
Citation No.- 2023:AHC:169934-DB; Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar v. the State of UP and 2 Ors., Neutral
Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131125-DB - referred to

Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14 - relied on

List of Acts
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970; Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989

List of Keywords
Writ Petition; Goonda; Commissioner; Appeal; s. 3(1); U.P. Control of Goondas Act; Externment order; Two
criminal cases; Habitual offender; Menace to society; Atmosphere of fear and terror; Due opportunity of
hearing; Personal enmity; Charge sheets; Cognizance; Dissuading members of public; Criminal activities;
Threat to public order; Prior conviction as a prerequisite; Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences
required to classify a person; Preventive legislation; Element of habituality; Punitive action of State;
Irreparable damage to reputation of such person and family; Writ petition allowed; Impugned orders quashed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27666 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in
Appeal No. 720 of 2025 and Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), District Bulandshahr in Case No. 1650 of 2024.
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitoner(s):
Ramesh Singh Kushwaha, Vikas Srivastava
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the impugned judgment and order
dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 720 of
2025 (Satendra vs. State of U.P.), as well as the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Bulandshahr in Case No. 1650 of 2024 (State of
U.P. vs. Satendra), whereby proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act,
1970 culminated in an externment order against the petitioner for a period of six months.

2. Factual matrix is that the record reveals that two criminal cases have been registered
against the petitioner at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. The first case, being
Case Crime No. 3 of 2022, was registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC along with
Sections 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act. The second case, being Case Crime No. 445 of 2023, was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC alongwith other allied
provisions of the SC/ST Act.

3. On account of the aforesaid criminal cases, proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, 1970 were initiated against the petitioner. After providing due opportunity
of hearing and upon consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner, wherein it was
contended that the aforesaid cases were falsely lodged due to personal enmity and are still pending
without any conviction, the externment order came to be passed.

4. The authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner is a
habitual offender, posing a menace to society, and that his activities have created an atmosphere of
fear and terror in the locality, thereby dissuading members of the public from coming forward to
depose against him. It has further been taken into account that charge-sheets have been submitted
in the aforesaid cases and cognizance has already been taken by the competent court.
Consequently, the petitioner has been adjudged to be a "Goonda" within the meaning of the Act of
1970 and has been externed under Section 3(3) thereof for a period of six months, which has been
affirmed by the appellate authority, which are under challenge in the present writ petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only two criminal cases are pending
against the petitioner and no conviction has been recorded therein. It was argued that mere
pendency of two cases cannot justify branding the petitioner as a "Goonda" within the meaning of
the Act of 1970. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar
Pandey vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 434 as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14, to contend that
habituality cannot be inferred from isolated incidents.
4 All. Satendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
987
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the petitioner squarely falls within the
ambit of the definition of "Goonda" as envisaged under Section 2 of the Act of 1970. It has been
urged that it is not sine qua non that the person must have been convicted of the offences in
question; rather, the pendency of criminal cases, coupled with the material available on record, is
sufficient to warrant initiation of proceedings under the Act.

7. It has further been contended that the petitioner's involvement in multiple criminal cases
within close proximity of time unequivocally demonstrates his habitual propensity to indulge in
criminal activities. Learned A.G.A. submits that the authorities below have, upon due consideration
of relevant material, rightly concluded that the petitioner is a habitual offender and a threat to
public order, and therefore, the externment order does not warrant any interference by this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as
the material available on record.

9. Section 2(b) of the Act 1970 reads as under:-

 "'Goonda' means a person who?

 (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts
to commit, or abets the commission of an offences punishable under section 153 or section 153-B
or section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter
XXII of the said Code ; or

 (ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 ; or

 (iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U. P.
Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or section 25, section 27 or section 29 of the
Arms Act, 1959 ; or

 (iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community
; or

 (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls ; or

 (vi) is a tout ;

 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar
Pandey vs. State of UP, 2010 SCC OnLine All 2411, held as under:-

 "14....In this case the accused has not been treated as 'goonda' on the grounds mentioned
in clause 2 (b) (ii) to (vii) of the Act as referred above. He has been treated as goonda under clause
2 (b) (i) of the Act. As per definition of goonda as contained in clause 2 (b) (i) of the Act, a person
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be teated as goonda only when he is habitually involved in commission of offence as mentioned
therein. The word goonda carries on the meaning that a person who by habit is involved to commit
repeated offences as mentioned above will be treated as 'goonda'. One or two criminal cases
against a person will not be sufficient to hold him that he is habitually involved in commission of
such offences and he is a 'goonda'.

 15. In the case of Shankar Ji Shukla v. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and Others
2005 (52) ACC 638 the word 'habitually' came for consideration before this Court. The court
relying on its previous judgment in the case of Imaran @ Abdul Qaddus Khan v. State of U.P. And
others reported in 2000 (Suppl.) ACC 171 (Alld) as well as the case of Vijay Narain Singh V State
of Bihar and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a
single or two acts of the accused will not be sufficient to hold that he is habitually involved in
commission of the offences referred in the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble court finds
place in para 6 of the judgment which is being extracted below:

 "?.. 6. The emphasis is on the work habitual and a single or two acts after a long gap
does not amount to the term 'Habitually'. The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or
'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated,
persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an
inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind. Because,
the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions
of the same kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of
the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them, they cannot be
treated as habitual ones. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the case of Imaran @
Abdul Qaddus Khan v. State of U.P. And Others. In Imran's case (supra), the Court relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Others,
for defining the term 'Goonda'. It was further held in Imaran's case (supra) that even the minority
view which was taken in Vijay Narain's case (supra) was that the word 'habitually' means 'by force
of habit'. From the facts found above I find that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he
cannot be brought under the term 'Goonda' as defined under the Act???"

 16. In this case, in counter affidavit filed by Awadhesh Kumar Awasthi, Sub Inspector,
P.S. Saraini, District Raebareli, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has a criminal
history of as many as 9 cases but in the impugned notice issued by the learned Additional District
Magistrate, only two cases as referred above have been mentioned therein, therefore, the criminal
history of rest cases cannot be a ground to treat the petitioner as goonda which do not find place in
the impugned order. If the criminal history of those cases would have been mentioned in the
impugned notice, they could be considered for holding the accused as goonda. Since only two
criminal cases have been referred in the impugned notice issued by the learned Additional District
Magistrate to the petitioner hence only those two cases cannot be considered to determine as to
whether the petitioner is goonda.

 17.***
4 All. Satendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
989
 18. In the case of Shankar Ji Shukla v. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and Others
(supra), it has been held that a person cannot be held to be 'goonda' only on the basis of one or
two acts, a person can be held to be goonda only when he is in habit of committing repeated
offences. In this case, only two criminal cases have been shown against the accused which too
were registered by the police in pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on the
applications moved by the respective complainants under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The
petitioner on the basis of these two cases cannot be said to be habitually involved in commission of
offences as defined under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act. He, therefore, cannot be held to be goonda..."

 (emphasis supplied)

11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahanshah vs. State of UP and 2
Others, Neutral Citation No.- 2022:AHC:35631 decided on 16.03.2022, held as under:-

 "The Apex Court in the case Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar and others, (1984)
3 SCC 14 observed that it is essential to refer to at least two incidents of commission of crime for
applicability of Clause (i) of section 2(b) of the 1970 Act.

 Since there is reference of one incident only in the notice in hand, it falls short of the
legal requirement as provided in Clause (i) of section 2(b) of the 1970 Act.

 Again, a Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 23.5.2018, after considering the Apex Court judgement in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State
of Bihar, 1984 (3) SCC 14 and Full Bench judgement of this Court in Bhim Sain Tyagi Tyagi Vs.
State of U.P. 1999 (39) ACC 321, while considering the issue relating to slapping of the penal
provisions of the Act against an individual on basis of a solitary case, has observed as follows:-

 "The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar and
others (1984) 3 SCC 14 has been pleased to hold that it is essential to refer to at least two
incidents of commission of crime for applicability of Clause (i) of section 2(b) of the Act. Since
there is reference of one incident only in the notice, it falls short of the legal requirement as
provided in Clause (i) of section 2(b) and in this way the notice being illegal could be challenged
before this Court as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhim Sain Tyagi v.
State of U.P. And others 1999 (39) ACC 321. If there had been reference of two or more incidents
in the impugned notice, then the minimum legal requirement of section, 2(b) Clause (i) would have
been satisfied, and then in that case sufficiency of the material on merits could not be challenged
before this Court, but before the authority concerned as laid down in the Division Bench ruling in
the case of Jaindendra @ Chhotu Singh Versus State of U.P. (supra). But since the impugned
notice in the present case is short of the legal requirement, it could be challenged in this Court. The
observations in para 12 of the ruling in the case of Jaindendra (supra) which have been quoted
above, also support this conclusion."

 (emphasis supplied)
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. A Division Bench of this Court again in the case of Govardhan vs. State of UP ,
Neutral Citation No.- 2023:AHC:169934-DB, held as under:-

 "9. It is a fundamental right of every citizen to reside peacefully and profess his business,
but if the executive authorities are issuing notice under this deterrent law, then they must be doubly
sure about the individual's past image, his past credentials, his family, social educational back
ground and after assessing all these factors if the executive authorities comes to the conclusion that
individual is a "Goonda" or a potential threat to society at large and should be thrown out from the
municipal limits, then only by well reasoned order, after applying his own independent judicial
mind pass a well reasoned order for externment of that individual or even issue notice to that
individual calling upon him to justify his past conduct.

 10. The public perception regarding the individuals' image carries weight. If the
individual is enjoying a bad reputation and name in the area and coupled with the fact that he has
got a chequered past then executive authorities are well within their right to issue notice to that
individual or to pass an externment order for that individual. Trivial and insignificant offences
having one or two in number would not make the person branded as a "Goonda". This adjective
"Goonda" itself carries bundle load of bad name, and the executive authorities casually and
irresponsibly brand a person as a Goonda, goes without saying, that his entire future and
reputation would go to dogs and cause irreparable damage to his name and reputation of his
family."

 (emphasis supplied)

13. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar vs.
the State of UP and 2 Ors., Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131125-DB, while relying on the
case of Goverdhan (supra), held as under:-

 "3. From the perusal of the impugned notice, following cases are registered against the
petitioner :-

 (1) Case Crime No. 150 of 2024 under Sections 389, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 67
of I.T. Act.

 (2) Case Crime No. 1042 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S., and

 (3) Beat Report No. 37/04.04.2025.

 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of two cases, the petitioner
has been issued notice under Section 3 U.P.Control of Goondas Act, which is not justified. This
Court in the case of Goverdhan Vs. State of U.P. passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of
2023 has struck down such a notice on the ground that because of implication only in two cases, a
person cannot be held to be a Goonda within the definition of the Act.
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
991
 5. This Court deprecated such practice on the part of the Government Officials and struck down
such notice in view of the settled legal position, the impugned notice cannot be said to be in accordance with
law, it is accordingly quashed."

14. Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 defines a "Goonda" as a person who
habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences punishable under various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences affecting the human body such as causing hurt or
injury, use of criminal force, kidnapping, sexual offences, as well as offences against property, including
criminal trespass, mischief, and cheating, etc.

15. It is apparent from the statutory scheme that conviction is specifically required only in respect of
certain offences under special enactments such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act, the U.P. Excise Act, the Public Gambling Act, and the Arms Act. However, in respect of offences under
the IPC, the Act does not mandate prior conviction as a prerequisite for initiating proceedings.

16. It is further evident that the Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to
classify a person as a "Goonda," nor does it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining
habituality. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh (supra), has held that for invoking
the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if
offences are committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality may not be established.

17. It is apparent that this Court has consistently held that merely on the basis of one or two criminal
cases, a person cannot be branded as a "Goonda". Such punitive action of the State causes irreparable damage
to the reputation of such person and his family.

18. Since in the instant case also, the petitioner has been branded as "Goonda" on the basis
of only two criminal cases registered against him, hence, the proceedings initiated under the Act of
1970 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 12.02.2025 and 02.06.2025 are quashed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 991
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28877 of 2025

Chandrabhan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents