# Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 36921 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-bihari-lal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49866
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Application under
Section 482 CrPC- entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial under Sections 2/3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986-
challenged-Base
cases
against
gang
comprising
two
men-
commission
of
economic
crimes
through
fraud
and
deceit- Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of
IPC.

B. Definition of gang- Section 2(b) of the
Act of 1986- violence or disturbance of
public order alone- not the sine qua non of
a gang as defined under the Act- the term
otherwise in the definition interpreted-
twin
objects-disturbing
public
order-
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage- may be
achieved through practice of violence or
otherwise- term otherwise not be read
ejusdem generis. (Paragraphs 17, 19 to
23)
HELD:
A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that
violence or disturbance of public order alone are
not the sine qua non of a gang as defined under
the Act of 1986. It postulates a group of
persons, who either acting singly or collectively,
employ violence, or threat or show of violence,
or intimidation, or coercion, 'or otherwise' with
the object of (i) disturbing public order; (ii) or of
gaining
any
undue
temporal,
pecuniary,
material; or other advantage for himself or any
other person, indulge in anti-social activities,
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of subsection
(b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986. (Para 17)

C. Interim order in the proceedings in the
base case- effect- stay order directing stay
of proceedings- coercive steps or bail
order in a crime- it does not efface the
crime- prosecution under the Act of 1986
can continue. (Paragraph 29)

HELD:
It is well settled that the effect of a stay order
directing stay of proceedings or of coercive
steps or a bail order in a crime does not to
efface the crime. It only puts in limbo some
proceedings that are to be taken in the case
based on the crime or some consequences like
arrest, that would otherwise follow. A bail order
ensures a temporary liberty for the accused
pending trial or subject to other orders of the
Court, but the accused, who is on bail, is not a
man free from blemish or the overhanging
shadow of the case awaiting trial. At times, an
accused on bail is regarded as a man in
constructive custody of the Court through the
sureties. (Para 29)

D. Mandatory compliance of the provisions
of Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 of the Rules
of 21 of Act of 1986- Rule 16 mandates-
authorities approving the gang chart
should also come to the conclusion on an
independent application of mind- case
ought
to
be
registered
against
the
accused- no fallacy in the mode of
approval of gang chart found in this case-
Application dismissed. (Para 32 and 33)
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:
A perusal of Rules 5(2) and 5(3) shows that
these relate to the gang-chart, its preparation
and approval. There is nothing shown in the
gang-chart here, which may show a violation of
Rule 5(2) or 5(3). All that is required by Rule 16
is
that
the
Authorities
recommending
registration of a case under the Act of 1986
should come to the conclusion with an
independent application of mind that a case
under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered.
Likewise,
the
Authorities
approving
the
gangchart also should come to the conclusion
on an independent application of mind that a
case under the Act of 1986 ought to be
registered against the accused on the basis of
the activities of the gang. There is no
prescription for the employment of particular
words to serve as index of due application of
mind. (Para 32)

It must be observed that at the stage of
approving the gang-chart on the basis of
materials placed, the competent Authority
should satisfy himself that a case for
prosecution under the Act of 1986 is made
out. Collection of further materials to
prosecute follows at a later stage when
after registration of the case, investigation
commences. At the stage of approval of the
gang-chart, the appr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,912 of 46,725. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39912 for what follows._

4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1285

54. The present application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is,
accordingly,
rejected. There shall be no order as to
costs.

55. Written submission filed by the
learned counsel for the applicants is taken
on record.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1285
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 36921 of 2019

Vinod Bihari Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shuka, Sri Kumar Vikrant,
Sri Manish Tiwari (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Application under
Section 482 CrPC- entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial under Sections 2/3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986-
challenged-Base
cases
against
gang
comprising
two
men-
commission
of
economic
crimes
through
fraud
and
deceit- Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of
IPC.

B. Definition of gang- Section 2(b) of the
Act of 1986- violence or disturbance of
public order alone- not the sine qua non of
a gang as defined under the Act- the term
otherwise in the definition interpreted-
twin
objects-disturbing
public
order-
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage- may be
achieved through practice of violence or
otherwise- term otherwise not be read
ejusdem generis. (Paragraphs 17, 19 to
23)
HELD:
A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that
violence or disturbance of public order alone are
not the sine qua non of a gang as defined under
the Act of 1986. It postulates a group of
persons, who either acting singly or collectively,
employ violence, or threat or show of violence,
or intimidation, or coercion, 'or otherwise' with
the object of (i) disturbing public order; (ii) or of
gaining
any
undue
temporal,
pecuniary,
material; or other advantage for himself or any
other person, indulge in anti-social activities,
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of subsection
(b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986. (Para 17)

C. Interim order in the proceedings in the
base case- effect- stay order directing stay
of proceedings- coercive steps or bail
order in a crime- it does not efface the
crime- prosecution under the Act of 1986
can continue. (Paragraph 29)

HELD:
It is well settled that the effect of a stay order
directing stay of proceedings or of coercive
steps or a bail order in a crime does not to
efface the crime. It only puts in limbo some
proceedings that are to be taken in the case
based on the crime or some consequences like
arrest, that would otherwise follow. A bail order
ensures a temporary liberty for the accused
pending trial or subject to other orders of the
Court, but the accused, who is on bail, is not a
man free from blemish or the overhanging
shadow of the case awaiting trial. At times, an
accused on bail is regarded as a man in
constructive custody of the Court through the
sureties. (Para 29)

D. Mandatory compliance of the provisions
of Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 of the Rules
of 21 of Act of 1986- Rule 16 mandates-
authorities approving the gang chart
should also come to the conclusion on an
independent application of mind- case
ought
to
be
registered
against
the
accused- no fallacy in the mode of
approval of gang chart found in this case-
Application dismissed. (Para 32 and 33)
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:
A perusal of Rules 5(2) and 5(3) shows that
these relate to the gang-chart, its preparation
and approval. There is nothing shown in the
gang-chart here, which may show a violation of
Rule 5(2) or 5(3). All that is required by Rule 16
is
that
the
Authorities
recommending
registration of a case under the Act of 1986
should come to the conclusion with an
independent application of mind that a case
under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered.
Likewise,
the
Authorities
approving
the
gangchart also should come to the conclusion
on an independent application of mind that a
case under the Act of 1986 ought to be
registered against the accused on the basis of
the activities of the gang. There is no
prescription for the employment of particular
words to serve as index of due application of
mind. (Para 32)

It must be observed that at the stage of
approving the gang-chart on the basis of
materials placed, the competent Authority
should satisfy himself that a case for
prosecution under the Act of 1986 is made
out. Collection of further materials to
prosecute follows at a later stage when
after registration of the case, investigation
commences. At the stage of approval of the
gang-chart, the approving Authority has to
be convinced that a case for investigation
under the Act of 1986 is made out. (Para
33)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja
& ors., (2014) 7 SCC 47

2. United Bank of India Vs. Pijush Kanti Nandy &
ors., (2009) 8 SCC 605

3. Ambuj Parag Dubey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2022 (4) ACR 3878

4. Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2000)
3 SCC 409

(Delivered by Hon'ble J. J. Munir, J.)

This Application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has
been preferred by Vinod Bihari Lal,
Director
(Administration),
Sam
Higginbottom University of Agriculture,
Technology and Sciences, P.S. Naini,
District Prayagraj, seeking to quash the
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial
No.54 of 2019, State vs. Vinod B. Lal and
others (arising out of Crime No.0850 of
2018), under Section 2/3 of The Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 19862, Police
Station Naini, District Allahabad, pending
in the Court of the Special Judge
(Gangsters Act), Allahabad.

2. The First Information Report3
giving rise to the crime, which after
investigation, has culminated in the chargesheet impugned, was lodged on 28.07.2018
at P.S. Naini, then District Allahabad, now
Prayagraj by Pradeep Kumar Mishra,
Station House Officer, P.S. Naini, District
Prayagraj. On the basis of the impugned
charge-sheet, Special Sessions Trial No.54
of 2019 was registered on the file of the
Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad.
The FIR says that the S.H.O. along with his
companion constables and the driver
returned to Station after taking care of the
law and order in the area and doing
investigation. During the course of time
that he was looking after the area, he came
to know that Vinod B. Lal son of Bihari
Lal, resident of Agriculture Campus, Naini,
Prayagraj and David Dutta son of A.B.
Dutta, a resident of 86, Myorabad, P.S.
Cantt., Prayagraj, are an organized gang,
whereof Vinod B. Lal is the leader. This
gang, comprising two men, is proficient in
the commission of economic crimes
through fraud and deceit, being offences of
the kind, described in Chapters XVI, XVII
and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 18604
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1287
and by perpetration of such offences, the
members of the gang gain personal,
material
and
pecuniary
benefit
for
themselves. This they do by tampering and
forging documents. By commission of such
offences, they accumulate wealth and
because of their fear and terror amongst
members of the public, no one comes
forward to lodge a report against them or
muster courage to testify in Court.

3. It is further on said in the FIR that
for the act of the two accused in running a
Christian Public School at Katju Road,
Shahganj, without the permission of the
Development Area, an FIR was lodged on
21.07.2017 by Diwakar Nath Tripathi, Vice
Chairman, Bharatiya Janata Party, Kashi
Kshetra, Allahabad. On the basis of the said
FIR, Crime No.170 of 2017 was registered,
under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Shahganj. It was
investigated
and
after
collection
of
material, that came to fore a charge-sheet
was filed in Court on 21.01.2018.

4. On 09.08.2017, Diwakar Nath
Tripathi aforesaid lodged an FIR, giving
rise to Crime No.476 of 2017, under
Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, wherein after investigation and
collection of material, substantiating the
allegations, a charge-sheet was filed in
Court on 04.10.2017.

5. On the 25th of August, 2017, B.
Shahim Siddiqui son of late Nasimuddin
Siddiqui, resident of 7D, Mahewa, Naini
lodged an FIR at P.S. Naini, giving rise
Crime No.726 of 2017, under Sections 147,
148, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC against Ram
Kishan
and
others,
wherein
after
investigation on the basis of material
collected, a charge-sheet was filed against
Vinod B. Lal on 01.03.2018.

6. Again on 17.12.2017, an FIR
lodged by Diwakar Nath Tripathi at P.S.
Civil Lines, Crime No.761 of 2017, under
Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC was registered against P.C. Singh
and others. In the aforesaid case, after
investigation, on the basis of material
collected, a charge-sheet was filed against
Vinod B. Lal and others on 09.04.2018.

7. On the 17th of December, 2017,
Rudra Narain Pathak son of Chandra
Shekhar Pathak, a resident of Rampur, P.S.
Ramnagar, District Varanasi submitted a
written information to P.S. Mutthiganj, on
the basis of which Crime No. 244 of 2017,
under Sections 147, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506 IPC was registered against
Arun Paul and others. Investigation ensued
and on the basis of materials collected, a
charge-sheet was filed on 01.04.2018
against R.K. Gaban and Vinod B. Lal for
offences punishable under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

8. It is on the basis of all these
material, the informant reported that Vinod
B. Lal and David Dutta have committed an
offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the
Act of 1986. The gang-chart relating to the
aforesaid accused has been approved by the
District Magistrate. With so much of
information, the present crime was reported
and registered under the Act of 1986.

9. The gang-chart relating to the gang,
headed by the applicant and of which Davit
Dutta was shown as the sole member, was
approved by the District Magistrate,
Allahabad on 28.07.2018. The gang-chart
carries
the
approval
of
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated
27.07.2018 and the recommendation of the
Superintendent of Police, Trans Yamuna
and the Circle Officer, Karchhana.
1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The Police after investigation
have filed a charge-sheet, on the basis of
which the Special Judge (Gangsters Act),
Allahabad
has
taken
cognizance
on
09.08.2019.
During
investigation,
the
Police have recorded the statements of the
three first informants of the five base cases,
on the foot of which the present crime
under Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986 was
registered,
leading
to
the
impugned
proceedings.

11. Heard Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kumar
Vikrant, learned Counsel for the applicant
and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned
A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

12. It is submitted by Mr. Manish
Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the applicant, that even if all allegations
in the impugned charge-sheet are regarded
as true, no case under Sections 2/3 of the
Act of 1986 is made out against the
applicant. In order to support the aforesaid
submission,
Mr.
Manish
Tiwari
has
referred to the definition of a gang in
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. He submits
that there are two essential ingredients to
constitute a gang. The two essential
ingredients, according to Mr. Manish
Tiwari, are 'violence' or 'disturbance of
public order' indulged in by a group of
persons, acting either singly or collectively,
for the purpose of pecuniary gain etc.

13. It is the learned Senior Advocate's
submission that none of the offences
charged
against
the
applicant,
either
involve violence or the disturbance of
public order. Therefore, even if there be
allegations about pecuniary gain, the
consequences under the Act of 1986 would
not attach. He next submits that there are
five base cases registered against the
applicant, on the foot of which the present
prosecution has been launched under
Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986. But, in each
of those crimes, the applicant has been
given judicial reprieve of some kind or the
other either by this Court or the Supreme
Court. Therefore, in the submission of the
learned Senior Advocate, the base cases are
not available to provide foundation to the
prosecution to pursue the present case
under the Act of 1986. It is in the last
submitted by the learned Senior Advocate
that there is violation of Rules 5(2), 5(3),
16 and 17 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 20215, vitiating the gang-chart. He
has emphasized that non-adherence to these
rules has vitiated the basis of registration of
the crime and a fortiori the police report
and the prosecution. He has drawn the
Court's attention to the aforesaid Rules.

14. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
learned A.G.A. has opposed the motion to
admit this application to hearing. Mr.
Tiwari has submitted that violence and
disturbance of public public order alone are
not essential to constitute a group of
persons into a gang under Section 2(b) of
the Act of 1986. The definition is much
wider and other kinds of actions directed to
gain any temporal, pecuniary, material or
other advantage for himself or another
member of the group, acting singly or
together, can constitute the group into a
gang, within the meaning of the Act of
1986.

15. It is next submitted that the crimes
that have been registered against the
applicant, wherein charge-sheets have been
filed, form the basis, amongst other things,
to proceed against the applicant for
commission of an offence punishable under
Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986. The mere
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1289
fact that interim orders or interim reliefs in
the said base cases have been granted to the
applicant, does not mean that the basis for
taking action under the Act of 1986 is
removed. Mr. Tiwari next submits that so
far as compliance with the Rules of 2021 is
concerned regarding drawing up of the
gang-chart, there is substantial compliance
with the requirements.

16. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, this Court is of opinion that in
order to consider the first submission of
Mr. Manish Tiwari, it is imperative to refer
to the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act
of 1986, which reads:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act,--

(a) x x x

(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 (Act no. 2
of 1974), namely--

(i) offences punishable under
Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act no. 45
of 1860), 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 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1910) or the
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 or any other law for
the time being in force, or

(iii)
occupying
or
talking
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
(Act no. 61 of 1985)

(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 Art, 1956, or

(vi) offences punishable under
section 3 of the Public Gambling Act,
1867 (Act no. 104 of 1956), 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 right
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
in preventing or obstructing any public
election being lawfully held, by physically
preventing the voter from exercising his
electoral rights, or
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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, 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 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972;

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

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

(c) x x x x

(d) x x x x

(e) x x x x

(f) x x x x"

17. A perusal of the aforesaid
provision
shows
that
violence
or
disturbance of public order alone are not
the sine qua non of a gang as defined under
the Act of 1986. It postulates a group of
persons, who either acting singly or
collectively, employ violence, or threat or
show of violence, or intimidation, or
coercion, ''or otherwise' with the object of
(i) disturbing public order; (ii) or of gaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material; or
other advantage for himself or any other
person, indulge in anti-social activities,
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1291
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of subSection (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986.

18. It is a well settled cannon of
statutory interpretation that a statute should
be read and understood according to its
plain grammatical meaning, unless that
construction leads to an absurd result, or
defeats the object and the very purpose of
it.

19. A reading of sub-Section (b) of
Section 2 of the Act of 1986 would indicate
that with object of disturbing public order
or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage for himself or
any other person, a group of persons acting
singly or collectively may act by violence
or threat or show of violence, or
intimidation, or coercion or otherwise.
Thus, the employment of the words
'otherwise'
after
the
word
'coercion'
indicates that the twin object of disturbing
public
order
or
gaining
any undue
temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. is the
hallmark of a group acting through a
member, singly or collectively, to qualify
as a gang. The twin object of disturbing
public
order
or
gaining
any undue
temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be
achieved through practice of violence,
threat or show of violence, or intimidation
etc. or otherwise. The employment of the
word 'otherwise' after 'coercion' is not to be
read ejusdem generis with the preceding
word like coercion, intimidation, violence
etc. Rather, the employment of the word
'otherwise' shows that the group may act in
any manner to achieve the object of
disturbing public order or gaining any
undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc.,
where violence or coercion or intimidation
may not at all be involved. Of course, all
that is done by the group, acting in unison
or a member singly, must be indulgence in
one or the other anti-social activities
enumerated in the various clauses of subSection (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986.
The construction placed on the words 'or
otherwise', which are words of general
import after specific words to exclude the
rule of ejusdem generis, finds authoritative
interpretation about it in Animal Welfare
Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and
others6. There have been interpretations
when the words 'or otherwise' have been
construed ejusdem generis as in United
Bank of India v. Pijush Kanti Nandy and
others7. But, those cases depend on the
context in which the words occur in the
statute. In Animal Welfare Board of India
(supra), it was held while interpreting the
provisions of Section 11 of The Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 thus:

"39. Section 11(1)(a) uses the
expressions "or otherwise", "unnecessary
pain or suffering", etc. Beating, kicking,
etc. go with the event so also torture, if the
report submitted by AWBI is accepted.
Even otherwise, according to AWBI, the
expression
"or
otherwise"
takes
in
Jallikattu, bullock cart race, etc. but,
according to the State of Tamil Nadu, that
expression has to be understood applying
the doctrine of ejusdem generis. In our
view, the expression "or otherwise" is not
used as words of limitation and the
legislature has intended to cover all
situations, where the animals are subjected
to unnecessary pain or suffering. Jallikattu,
bullock cart races and the events like that,
fall in that expression under Section
11(1)(a). The meaning of the expression "or
otherwise" came up for consideration in
Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay [AIR
1957 SC 521 : 1957 SCR 721] and the
Court held that the words "or otherwise"
when used, apparently intended to cover
other cases which may not come within the
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
meaning of the preceding clause. In our
view, the said principles also can be safely
applied
while
interpreting
Section
11(1)(a)."

20. I t would also be apposite to quote
the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960, in the context of which the words 'or
otherwise' were held not limited by
preceding words invoking the ejusdem
generis rule. Section 11 aforesaid reads:

"11. Treating animals cruelly.--
(1) If any person--

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, overdrives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise
treats any animal so as to subject it to
unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or,
being the owner permits, any animal to be
so treated; or

(b)x x x

(c) x x x"

21. It is ultimately to be inferred from
the context where the words 'or otherwise'
have been employed and the object of the
particular provision, whether the said
words are to be construed ejusdem generis
or free. Here, the words are not a
meaningless or vague end to the preceding
meaningful words of the same genre.
Rather, the words 'or otherwise' are words
of wide import to describe anything, which
has the object of disturbing public order or
of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage for a member
of the group or any other person
comprising
it,
by
indulging
in
the
enumerated anti-social activities. Temporal
and pecuniary advantages may be gained
through anti-social activities of a nonviolent kind as well, so long there is a
group of persons determined to do it
individually or in unison. Therefore, in the
opinion of this Court, there is no reason to
read the words 'or otherwise', occurring in
sub-Section (b) of Section 2 of the Act of
1982 ejusdem generis.

22. The question fell for consideration
before a Division Bench of this Court
recently in Ambuj Parag Dubey and
others v. State of U.P. and others8, where
it has been held:

"22. The expression 'or otherwise'
as used in the definition of gang can be
read conjunctively or disjunctively. If read
conjunctively, the words 'or otherwise', in
law, when used in a general phrase,
following an enumeration of particulars,
are commonly interpreted in a restricted
sense, as referring to such other matters as
are kindred to the classes before mentioned.
The word "or" in "or otherwise" is a
disjunctive that marks an alternative which
generally corresponds to the words "either".
An interoperation of the general words "or
otherwise" limiting them to the matters and
things of the same kind as the previous
words (violence, intimidation, coercion)
would make the general words "or
otherwise" following the preceding specific
words,
redundant.
These
words
"or
otherwise" are not words of limitation, but
of extension so as to cover all possible
offences.
The
word
"otherwise"
is,
therefore, not to be read "ejusdem generis"
with the other instances of violence
mentioned in the earlier part of sub-section.

23. Further, on perusal of the
offences which have been included in the
definition of Gang includes offences under
Chapter-XVII of Indian Penal Code which
include the offence of theft under Section
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1293
378, offences under Section 403 and the
related sections dealing with criminal
misappropriation of property, Section 405
and allied sections deals with the crime of
criminal
breach
of
trust,
dishonest
misappropriation of property. Section 410
and
related
sections
concern
stolen
property, Section 420 and related sections
deal with offences of cheating which only
involve deception, fraudulent or dishonest
inducement to a person or his property. It is
evident from the provisions included within
the definition of gang do not require
existence of force or violence. Similarly,
offences under Section 3 of U.P. Public
Gambling Act may not necessarily involve
the use of force. Thus, the word 'otherwise'
has been employed disjunctively in the
definition of gang and cannot be read as
"ejusdem generis", with other incidents of
violence mentioned in the earlier part of
this sub-section (Vide: Verneet Kumar
(supra))"

23. In view of what has been said
above, this Court does not find any merit in
the submission of Mr. Manish Tiwari that
violence in one form or the other is a sine
qua non for a group of persons to qualify as
a gang under Section 2(b) of the Act of
1986.

24. Even if it be accepted for awhile
that violence or threat of violence is
essential to bring a group of persons acting
individually or together within the mischief
of a gang as defined under Section 2(b),
this Court must take judicial notice of the
contents of the FIRs relating to the base
cases, on the foot of which the impugned
prosecution has been launched. The FIRs of
the base cases in all fairness ought to have
been annexed by the applicant. That has not
been done. Nevertheless, since those FIRs
are available on the website of the U.P.
Police (UPCOP), this Court has looked into
the contents of some of them. In Case
Crime No.244 of 2017, under Sections 147,
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj, the first
informant has alleged as follows:

"प्राथी की उक्त आरर्जयात ि़िपने की र्नयत से
लखनऊ डायसेशन ट्रस्ट एसोर्सएशन के कर्थत सर्चि अरुर् पल ि
उनके सियोर्ी कार्लिन थायडोर, र्िनोद बी लाल, यस बी लाल,
डेर्नयल सुिान, आर के र्बन, उर्ा िेर्मलटन, कमल मसीि,
प्रफुलल मेसी, ररंकी स्िरूप, शर्श प्रकाश जो एक अपरािी एिम
िूमार्फया र्कस्म के व्यर्क्त िै र्जनका एक संर्र्ठत र्र्रोि िै जो शिर
की खाली प़िी जमीनों को अिैि कब्जा करने की नीयत से कूट
रर्चत दस्तािेज तैयार कर जमीन ि़िप लेते िै इसी तरि प्राथी की
आरर्जयात र्स्थत मौज मैकू उस्मान पुर उफि कटघर थाना मुट्ठीर्ंज
को अिैि तरीके से ि़िपने की नीयत से एक फजी कूट रर्चत
दस्तािेज िाद सं0 170/ सन 1974 लखनऊ डायसेशन ट्रस्ट
एसोर्शएशन बनाम कमीशन इक्यूर्मर्नकल र्मशन दार्खला र्दनांक
04/04/1974 ि आदेश र्दनांक 10/04/1974 मुंर्सफ बेस्ट
इलािाबाद पीठासीन अर्िकारी के नाम के स्थान पर यस 0 पी0
पाल अंर्कत िै और र्दनांक 24.04.1974 को िस्तािर सी०
पी० लाल का िै एिं न्यायालय की कूटरर्चत फजी मुरा से तैयार कर
ि़िपने की सार्जश र्कये िै उक्त कूट रर्चत दस्तािेज की सत्यता के
संबंि में प्राथी के अर्ििक्ता के द्वारा मा0 उच्च न्यायालय
इलािाबाद में जन सूचना अर्िकार के तित एक प्राथिना पि इस
आशय का र्दया र्या र्क 01/04/1974 से 30/04/1974
के बीच मुंर्सफ बेस्ट इलािाबाद के पद पर पीठासीन कौन थे । मा0
उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अिर्त कराया र्या र्क 01/04/1974 से
30/04/1974 बीच मुंर्सफ बेस्ट इलािाबाद के पद पर पीठासीन
अर्िकारी श्री चििती प्रिाकर र्मश्र र्नयुक्त थे। कूट रर्चत जजमेंट /
र्डिी की िाया प्रर्त एिम मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्राप्त सूचना
की िाया प्रर्त प्राथिना पि के साथ संलग्न की जा रिी िै। मुंर्सफ
बेस्ट इलािाबाद के कायािलय एिं ररकडि रूम में इस मुकदमें के संबंि
में ररकडि का मुयायना र्कया र्या लेर्कन न दार्खले के और न िी
र्नर्िय के संबंि में कोई ररकडि निी िै। र्दनांक 20/08/2017 को
समय लर्िर् 12.30 बजे र्दन प्राथी अपने सियोर्ी उदय प्रताप
र्संि ि र्शि बिादुर र्संि के साथ आराजी संख्या 143 र्जसमे
बरसात का पानी िर र्या था, को कुि मजदूरो को ले कर साफ
करिा रिे थे र्क मौके पर अरुर् पाल, आर के र्बन उर्ा िेर्मलटन
कमल मशीि, प्रफुलल मेसी, ररंकी स्िरूप आ र्ए और प्राथी को
1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
र्ाली देते िुए सफाई करने से मना करने लर्े। प्राथी के मना करने पर
उपरोक्त लोर् उपरोक्त कूटरर्चत फजी जजमेंट / र्डिी का ििाला
देते िुये िमकी र्दए र्क दोबारा इस जमीन पर आओर्े तो बोटी
बोटी काट कर इस जमीन में र्ा़ि दूाँर्ा उपरोक्त लोर् अपरािी एिं
िूमार्फया र्कश्म के व्यर्क्त िै । कूटरर्चत फजी दस्तािेज तैयार कर
शिर की खाली जमीन पर कब्जा करने का संर्र्ठत र्र्रोि िै प्राथी
को िय व्याप्त िै र्क उपरोक्त लोर् प्राथी की जमीन के लालच में
प्राथी को जान से न मार दे प्राथी ने उपरोक्त घटना की सूचना मुट्ठीर्ंज
थानाध्यि को र्दया परंतु आज तक कोई कायिािी निी िुई।"

(emphasis by Court)

25. Again during investigation,
Shahim Siddiqui, who is the first informant
of Case Crime No.726 of 2017, under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC,
one of the base cases, has said in his
statement under Section 161 of the Code, a
copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.7
to the affidavit in support of the present
application as follows:

"श्री सिीम र्सददीकी पुि स्ि0 श्री नमीमुददीन
र्सददीकी र्निासी 7डी मिेिा थाना नैनी इलािाबाद ने पूिने पर
बयान र्कये र्क र्दनांक 25.8.17 को समय करीब 5.30 बजे
करीब अपने कालेज सुआर में अपने शैर्िक कायि के र्लए र्या था
काम पूरा िोने के बाद कैन्टीन के बािर ख़िा िोकर अपने दास्ते का
इंतजार कर रिा था तिी अचानक कालेज के स्टाफ रामर्कसन
राकेश दूबे चार पांच अन्य लोर् असलिे से लैश िोकर मुझे मारते
पीटते िुए कमरे में उठाले र्ये तथा मुझे जान से मारने की र्नयत से
र्िनोद की बात के ललकारने पर मेरे ऊपर ररिालिर से फायर र्कया
परन्तु र्ोली र्मस िो र्यी र्जससे मेरी जान बच र्यी। तथा मुझे र्ाली
र्ुप्ता र्दये ि जान से...... अपना जान बचाकर िार्ा।"

(emphasis by Court)

26. In the circumstances, it cannot be
said to be a case where the applicant may
urge that there is no allegation about
violence or threat of violence by him or at
his instance by one or the other member of
the group. To the contrary, there is
abundant material about the group of
persons, of which the applicant is the
leader, threatening violence and indulging
in coercion.

27. So far as the disturbance of public
order is concerned, as already noticed
hereinabove, a group of persons can have
two alternate objects to 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
other advantage for a member of the group
or any other person. All that is necessary is
that in order to attain either of the two
objects, the group of persons, acting singly
or in unison, should indulge in one of the
enumerated anti-social activities envisaged
under various clauses of sub-Section (b) of
Section 2 of the Act of 1986. The
submission
of
Mr.
Manish
Tiwari,
therefore, that unless there is disturbance of
public order by a group of persons, they
cannot qualify as a gang within the
meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986
is without substance.

28. The next submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicant is that the
five cases, on the foot of which the case
under the Act of 1986 has been registered,
culminating in the impugned prosecution,
cannot at all form basis for taking action
under the Act of 1986, inasmuch as
different interim orders or reliefs in relation
to the base cases have been granted by this
Court or the Supreme Court. The five cases
that are subject of the gang-chart, on the
basis of which the impugned prosecution
has been launched, and where, according to
the applicant, interim orders have been
passed by this Court or the Supreme Court
are enumerated below in tabular form:

Sl.
Crime
Police
Sections Status
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1295
No. No.
Station/
District
1
476 of
2017
Civil Lines/
Allahabad
406,
419,
420,
467,
468,
471,
120-B
IPC
No
coerci
ve
action,
vide
order
dated
20.03.
2023
passed
by the
Supre
me
Court
in
S.L.P.
(Crl.)
No.33
37 of
2023
2
170 of
2017
Shahganj/
Allahabad
406,
419,
420,
467,
468,
471,
120-B
IPC
Furthe
r
procee
dings
stayed
by this
Court
vide
order
dated
04.10.
2018
passed
in
Applic
ation
u/s
482
No.34
944 of
2018
3
726 of
2017
Naini/
Allahabad
147,
148,
323,
504,
506,
307 IPC
No
coerci
ve
action,
vide
order
dated
13.11.
2018
passed
by this
Court
in
Applic
ation
u/s
482
No.40
320 of
2018
4
244 of
2017
Mutthiganj/
Allahabad
147,
419,
420,
467,
468,
471,
504,
506 IPC
Issue
notice
vide
order
dated
09.05.
2019
passed
by this
Court
in
Applic
ation
u/s
482
No.13
820 of
2019
5
761 of
2017
Civil Lines/
Allahabad

419,
420,
406,
467,
468,
471,
Furthe
r
procee
dings
stayed
vide
1296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
120-B
IPC
order
dated
07.12.
2018
passed
by this
Court
in
Applic
ation
u/s
482
No.44
250 of
2018

29. It is well settled that the effect of a
stay order directing stay of proceedings or
of coercive steps or a bail order in a crime
does not to efface the crime. It only puts in
limbo some proceedings that are to be
taken in the case based on the crime or
some consequences like arrest, that would
otherwise follow. A bail order ensures a
temporary liberty for the accused pending
trial or subject to other orders of the Court,
but the accused, who is on bail, is not a
man free from blemish or the overhanging
shadow of the case awaiting trial. At times,
an accused on bail is regarded as a man in
constructive custody of the Court through
the sureties. In this regard, reference may
be made to the following observations of
the Constitution Bench in Sunil Fulchand
Shah v. Union of India and others9:

"24. .......... The effect of granting
bail is to release the accused from
internment though the court would still
retain
constructive
control
over
him
through the sureties. In case the accused is
released on his own bond such constructive
control could still be exercised through the
conditions of the bond secured from him.
The literal meaning of the word "bail" is
surety. In Halsbury's Laws of England
[Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.,
Vol.
11,
para
166.],
the
following
observation succinctly brings out the effect
of bail:

The effect of granting bail is not
to set the defendant (accused) at liberty but
to release him from the custody of law and
to entrust him to the custody of his sureties
who are bound to produce him to appear at
his trial at a specified time and place. The
sureties may seize their principal at any
time and may discharge themselves by
handing him over to the custody of law and
he will then be imprisoned."

30. In view of this position to say that
because of the indulgence of interim orders
granted by this Court or the Supreme Court
in one or the other five cases that are part
of
the
gang-chart
in
the
present
prosecution, those cases are no longer
available to the prosecution to proceed
under the provisions of the Act of 1986, is
a submission stated to be rejected.

31. The last submission advanced by
Mr. Manish Tiwari is about the mandatory
compliance with the provisions of Rule
5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021
framed under the Act of 1986. These Rules
have been made by the State Government
in exercise of powers under Section 23 of
the Act of 1986 to carry out its purposes.
Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 are extracted
below:

"5. General Rules.--

(2)
The gang-chart
will
be
presented to the district head of police after
clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police mentioning the
4 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1297
detailed activities in relation to all the
persons of the said gang.

(3) The following provisions shall
be complied with in respect of gang-charts-
-

a. 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.

b. There may be no gang of one
person but there may be a gang of known
and other unknown persons and in that
form the gang-chart may be approved as
per these rules.

c. The gang-chart shall not
mention those cases in which acquittal has
been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after
the investigation. However, the gang-chart
shall
not
be
approved
without
the
completion of investigation of the base
case.

d. Those cases shall not be
mentioned in the gang-chart, on the basis of
which action has already been taken once
under this Act.

e. A separate list of criminal
history, as given in Form No.--4, shall be
attached with the gang-chart detailing all
the criminal activities of that gang and
mentioning all the criminal cases, even if
acquittal has been granted in those cases or
even where final report has been submitted
in the absence of evidence.

Along with the above, a certified
copy of the gang register kept at the police
station shall also be attached with the gangchart. In addition to the above, the
information of crime and gang members
mentioned in the gang-chart will also be
updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice
System (ICJS) portal and Crime and
Criminal
Tracking
Network
System
(CCTNS).

16.
Forwarding
of
GangChart.--

The following manner shall be
followed in the forwarding of Gang-Chart:

(1) Forwarding of the gang-chart
by the Additional Superintendent of Police:
The Additional Superintendent of Police
will not only take a quick forwarding action
in the case but he will duly peruse the
gang-chart and all the attached forms; and
when it is satisfied that there is a just and
satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only
then will he forward the letter along with
the recommendation given below on the
gang-chart
to
the
Superintendent
of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police.

'Throughly studied the gang-chart
and attached evidence. The basis of action
under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation."