Violence not an essential element to qualify as Gang under UP Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986: Allahabad HC
Court said that temporal and pecuniary advantages may be gained through anti-social activities of a non-violent kind as well, so long there is a group of persons determined to do it individually or in unison.
The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated April 19, 2023, held that the words ‘or otherwise’ occurring under the definition of “Gang” need not be read ejusdem generis – meaning thereby, violence is not a sine qua non for a group of persons to qualify as Gang under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Court said that temporal or pecuniary advantages can be derived through non-violent acts as well, so long there is a group of persons determined to do it individually or in unison.
Justice JJ Munir, while dismissing an application under Section 482 CrPC, held,
“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.”
It was further observed that the word “otherwise” after “coercion” need not be deduced as an act of a similar kind – which implies that it may be read disjunctively or conjointly. Reliance was placed on Ambuj Prag Dubey and Ors. v. State of U.P., (2022) 4 ACR 3878 in this regard. Furthermore, even if it is accepted that violence or threat of violence is an essential element to establish Section 2(b), the Court must take judicial notice of the contents of FIRs in such cases, the single judge bench noted in the order.
On the contention that different interim orders were in operation against the accused in five cases against which charges under the 1986 Act had been registered, the bench reiterated that the effect of a stay order does not efface the crime but only puts in limbo some proceedings or consequences such as arrest. Reliance was placed on Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 409 in this regard.
On the argument that Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 of the 2021 Rules under the 1986 Act were not followed, it was observed that any fallacy in the mode of approval of the gang chart is not of much relevance, where the case is already up for trial – further, the only requirement in such cases is the satisfaction of the competent authority for prosecution under the 1986 Act upon material on record.
The present application under Section 482 CrPC sought direction to quash proceedings against the accused pending before the Sessions Trial under Section 2/3 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, pending before the Court of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad.
Case Title: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P.