PAVAN GIRI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8755 of 2026

Pavan Giri And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Amar Bahadur Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

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

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 Sessions Case No. 952 of 2025 (State Vs. Pavan Giri and
another) arising out of Case Crime No.247 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of
the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act) Police Station Alinagar,
District Chandauli pending before learned Special Judge, (Gangster Act),
District Gautambudh Nagar as well as to quash the summoning order dated
27.08.2025 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. 247 of 2023 under Section 3(1) of the Act at
Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli wherein it has been averred that
the applicants 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 applicants 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, wherein the
details of the criminal cases pending against the applicants have been
                                                          NA528 No. 8755 of 2026
                                 2


described. Upon approval of the Gang chart by the concerned authorities,
F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants are 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 applicants has contended that merely on the basis
of case(s) shown against the applicants in the gang chart, Gangsters Act has
been imposed upon the applicants. Learned counsel further argued that the
applicants are neither a gang leader nor they are member of any gang and
that the applicants never acted or conducted himself as such. He further
submits that the Act of 1986 merely defines the status of accused-applicants
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 applicants 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 applicants
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 applicants' 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
                                                         NA528 No. 8755 of 2026
                                  3


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 applicants, 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
     a prescription made in the Rules. The power to frame Rules is
                                                     NA528 No. 8755 of 2026
                           4


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
constituted by statute and the decision to be arrived there at
                                                         NA528 No. 8755 of 2026
                                5


     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 Sessions Case No. 952 of
2025 (State Vs. Pavan Giri and another) arising out of Case Crime No.247 of
2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Alinagar, District
Chandauli pending before learned Special Judge, (Gangster Act), District
Gautambudh Nagar as well as summoning order dated 27.08.2025 passed in
the aforesaid case are hereby quashed as against the applicants.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 8755 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.



                                                                                   (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad