JITENDRA SINGH ALIAS RAJAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42368 of 2026

Jitendra Singh Alias Rajan 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 S.T. No. 378 of 2020 (State Vs. Vivek and others), arising out
of Case Crime No. 260 of 2019, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, (hereinafter to be
referred to as "the Act) Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra,
pending before learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance
Commision)/Gangster Act, Sonbhadra as well as to quash the charge sheet
dated 29.04.2020 and also to quash the summoning order dated 27.07.2020
passed in the aforesaid case.

3. The germane facts of the case are that a first information report has been
lodged in Case Crime No. 260 of 2019 under Section 3(1) of the Act at
Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, 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 members of the
public are deterred from coming forward to depose or lodge complaints
against them through ordinary legal machinery. A gang chart was prepared,
                                                         NA528 No. 42368 of 2026
                                 2


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.
He thus submits that Gangsters Act has 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
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
                                                        NA528 No. 42368 of 2026
                                  3


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 3(1) 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
     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
                                                   NA528 No. 42368 of 2026
                           4


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 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
                                                        NA528 No. 42368 of 2026
                                 5


     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 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 S.T. No. 378 of 2020
(State Vs. Vivek and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2019,
under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, pending
before   learned    Additional       Session   Judge/F.T.C.   (14th   Finance
Commision)/Gangster Act, Sonbhadra as well as charge sheet dated
                                                                                           NA528 No. 42368 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    29.04.2020 and also summoning order dated 27.07.2020 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.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    CP.sahani




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