The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed all proceedings against former Samajwadi Party MP Rizwan Zaheer and his son-in-law, Rameez Nemat, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The court ruled that state authorities acted mechanically and failed to meet the strict legal criteria required to invoke the law.
In a decision pronounced on May 29 following a May 26 hearing, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi set aside the charge sheet, cognizance order, and summoning order previously issued by a special judge. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the defendants’ actions had disrupted public order or were carried out to obtain illegal financial or material benefits.
TIMELINE CONTRADICTIONS
A major point of contention in the ruling was a significant chronological discrepancy raised by the defense. Senior advocate B A Khan, representing the accused, pointed out that the local station house officer had finalized the gang chart on July 7, 2024. However, the police first information report claimed that patrolling officers only first learned of the alleged gang’s existence on July 20, 2024.
Justice Vidyarthi noted this contradiction was highly improbable and pointed toward bad faith on the part of the police.
LACK OF SUBSTANTIVE PROOF
The state’s case originated from an FIR registered at the Tulsipur police station in the Balrampur district. In the police-approved gang chart, Nemat was designated as the gang leader and Zaheer as a member. The classification was based on two prior criminal cases: a 2022 attempt to murder case and a 2023 murder case.
Additional government advocate G D Bhatt argued against the petition, claiming that the accused held significant local influence and spread terror, which discouraged community members from filing complaints. He maintained that all procedural steps had been correctly followed.
However, the High Court found that the state failed to produce evidence showing how the cited murder case was linked to financial gain, or how the men’s actions had disturbed community tranquillity. The court concluded that the investigating officer, district magistrate, superintendent of police, and the trial court had all acted in a routine, mechanical manner without exercising the independent satisfaction required by the Act and its 2021 Rules.
