AKHAND PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38348 of 2026

Akhand Pratap Singh
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Alok Chandra, Karunesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional
Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State, and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed seeking for quashing of the
entire proceedings G.T. No. 521 of 2008 (State Vs. Akhand Pratap Singh
), arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2003, under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act), Section 307 I.P.C. and
Section 7 Criminal law Amendment Act, Police Station Tarwa, District
Azamgarh, pending before learned Special Judge, Gangster
Act, Azamgarh as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 06.12.2004 and
also to quash the summoning order dated 18.09.2006 passed in the
aforesaid case.

3. The germane facts of the case are that a first information report has
been lodged in G.T. No. 521 of 2008 (State Vs. Akhand Pratap Singh),
arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2003, under Section 3(1) of the
Act, Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal law Amendment Act,
Police Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh, wherein it has been averred that
the applicant along with the co-accused have formed an organized
criminal gang, who are engaged either collectively or individually are
repeatedly indulged in anti-social and violent activities within the
territorial limits of the District for their personal gain. It is further averred
that by unleashing terror, fear in the locality, the applicant and the co-
accused disrupted public peace and created such panic that innocent
                                                      NA528 No. 38348 of 2026
                               2


members of the public are deterred from coming forward to depose or
lodge complaints against them through ordinary legal machinery. The
applicant has been falsely implicated due to previous local animosity and
village factionalism. A gang chart was prepared, wherein the details of the
criminal cases pending against the applicant has been described. Upon
approval of the Gang chart by the concerned authorities, F.I.R. has been
lodged against the applicant and the co-accused under the Act. The matter
was entrusted for investigation, the investigating officer after collecting
credible evidence oral as well as documentary evidence, disclosing prima
facie complicity of the applicant as an active member of the gang, the
investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet, upon which
learned trial Court took cognizance vide order impugned and therefore the
applicant is before this Court challenging the entire proceedings as well as
charge sheet and cognizance order, as detailed in the preceding paragraph.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that merely on the
basis of case(s) shown against the applicant in the gang chart, Gangsters
Act has been imposed upon the applicant. Learned counsel further argued
that the applicant is neither a gang leader nor he is a member of any gang
and that the applicant never acted or conducted himself as such. He
further submits that the Act of 1986 merely defines the status of accused-
applicant indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause as a
"gangster" going by the definition of "gang" and "gangsters" provided
respectively under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 2. Learned counsel
thus argued that the Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence. Apart
from the aforesaid submission, learned counsel also argued that the gang
chart merely demonstrates the involvement of the applicant in a crime, as
specified under the clauses of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 for which
punishment is already prescribed. A bare perusal of the medical report
and the ingredients of the alleged offences would demonstrate that the
essential legal elements—particularly the core components required to
attract an attempt to murder or caste-based atrocities within public
view—are conspicuously missing. He thus submits that Gangsters Act
and other sections have been roped upon the applicant without an offence
being created. It is the settled principle in law that there can be no
punishment without an offence in law. Learned counsel has placed
reliance upon a reported decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the
                                                       NA528 No. 38348 of 2026
                               3


matter of Shiv Pratap Singh alias Chinu Vs. State of U.P. and others
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3979 of 2026: 2026 INSC 894.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the
application and submitted that the charge sheet has been filed after a
comprehensive and fair investigation which reveals sufficient credible
material substantiating the applicant's complicity in organized gang
activities. It is contended that the statutory requirements prescribed under
the Gangsters Act and the Rules of 2021 were strictly adhered to; the
gang-chart was prepared collectively incorporating the substantive base
cases of the gang members and was duly approved by the competent
administrative authorities, upon joint satisfaction.

6. Learned A.G.A. further contends that even a solitary criminal
antecedent or collective base cases satisfy the threshold under Section
2(b) of the Act, and that the learned trial court, having found a prima facie
case disclosing the commission of the offence, rightly took cognizance
and summoned the applicant, which calls for no interference by this
Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 528 BNSS.
However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Shiv Pratap Singh alias Chinu (supra).

7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and
perused the material on record.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shiv Pratap Singh alias
Chinu (supra) thoroughly analyzed the foundational architecture of the
U.P. Act 1986 Act and in paragraph nos.43, 52, 54 held as under:-

     43. "….... what is obviously absent in the U.P. Act is a
     provision determining the offence as one created under the Act.
     After defining gang, which includes commission of the offences
     listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) and defining gangster as a
     member or leader or organiser of a gang, the punishment is
     prescribed for a gangster without an offence being created by
     statute; which makes the penal act, stillborn."

     "52. Article 20(1) encapsulates the principle of "nullum crimen
                                                 NA528 No. 38348 of 2026
                          4


nulla poena sine lege", (No crime or punishment can exist
without a penal law); there can be no punishment without an
offence in law. As we found, the Act of 1986 does not create a
crime/offence and it merely defines the status of a person
indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause, as a
'gangster' going by the definition of 'gang' and 'gangster'
provided respectively under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section
2. The status is also determined not by a procedure in the
enactment but a prescription made in the Rules. The power to
frame Rules is found from the Act, in Section 23, which enables
the State Government to make rules for carrying out the
purposes of this Act and to provide any contravention of the
Rules to be punishable with a term of imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months, with or without fine, not exceeding
Rs.1,000/-. The Rules provided for a Gang Chart to be prepared
by the police, recommended through its hierarchy and approved
in a joint meeting of the higher authorities of the Police and the
head of the District Administration. The preparation of the
Gang Chart and the involvement in a crime, as specified under
the clauses of Section 2(b) determines the status of a person, as
a gangster, for which punishment is prescribed, as we time and
again observed in this very same judgment; without an offence
being created."

"54. A 'gangster' is defined under the Act and the determination
of who a gangster is, for the purpose of punishment, is as
prescribed in the Rules, left to the ipsi dixit of the Executive.
The creation of crime, or to make an act or omission subject to
penal consequences as an offence, is essentially a legislative
function and it cannot be thrown away and left to sprout in the
thickets of subordinate legislation. As we noticed, the
provisions of the Act could lead to a detention of the accused
without trial for long, which is akin to a statute enjoining
preventive detention. Though preventive detention has been
held to be permissible even in the teeth of Article 21, the same
is hedged with safeguards, which are held to be sacrosanct and
                                                       NA528 No. 38348 of 2026
                               5


     even a minor procedural violation would entail release of the
     detenu. The safeguards in preventive detention are numerous,
     since it is the subjective satisfaction of the Administration and
     the Police that leads to a detention, the period in which such
     detention continues being the exclusive premise of the State
     Government, who also has the authority to release the detenu at
     any point of time. The period provided in which such detention
     order has to be forwarded to the State Government; the
     materials to be supplied to the detenu; the right of
     representation to the various authorities, at every stage, as
     granted to the detenu; the reference to an Advisory Board
     constituted by statute and the decision to be arrived there at
     within a time frame, mitigates and erases to an extent the rigour
     & malice of subjectivity, which subjectivity pervades a
     preventive detention order. The subject enactment, the U.P. Act
     not only permits detention for a period without anything more
     than the inclusion in a Gang Chart but also enables a trial and
     punishment on the basis of the very same Gang Chart, in
     addition to the pre-trial incarceration, but without an offence
     being created by the Act itself. It is akin to the English proverb:
     'Give a dog a bad name and hang him".

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has authoritatively held that the Act suffers
from an incurable statutory defect by prescribing penal consequences for
being a "gangster" under Section 3 without actually enacting, creating, or
defining an independent substantive offence under the statute. The
executive apparatus and subordinate rules cannot be permitted to supply
or manufacture a penal offence where the parent statute has failed to
create the same. Furthermore, the practice of preparing an omnibus gang
chart wherein cases are collectively incorporated and approved routinely
by executive authorities without establishing independent statutory
culpability cannot validate an otherwise unconstitutional prosecution.
When the foundational statute itself has been declared "stillborn" for the
purposes of prosecuting individuals under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act,
initiating or continuing criminal trials solely grounded on the inclusion of
an accused in an administrative gang-chart is impermissible and amounts
to a sheer abuse of the process of law and therefore, in the light of the law
                                                                                           NA528 No. 38348 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Pratap Singh alias
                                    Chinu (supra), this Court finds that the continuation of criminal
                                    proceedings against the applicant under the provisions of the Act cannot
                                    be legally sustained, having no statutory base to stand on and thus the
                                    same is liable to be quashed.

                                    10. In view of the above, the entire proceedings of G.T. No. 521 of 2008
                                    (State Vs. Akhand Pratap Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of
                                    2003, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
                                    Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the
                                    Act), Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal law Amendment Act,
                                    Police Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh, pending before learned Special
                                    Judge, Gangster Act, Azamgarh as well as to quash the charge sheet dated
                                    06.12.2004 and also to quash the summoning order dated 18.09.2006
                                     passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed as against the applicant.

                                    11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

                                    12. It is clarified that this order shall not affect, impede, or prejudice any
                                    pending trial, investigation, or proceedings against the applicant in the
                                    underlying base case(s) under the general penal law, which shall proceed
                                    to their logical conclusion on their own merits in accordance with law.



                                                                                   (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    CP.sahani




Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad