The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order passed by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Varanasi, which had rejected the discharge application of an accused booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court ruled that the approval of the gang chart by competent authorities was mechanical and violated statutory rules, as evidenced by signatures affixed on a pre-printed format.
The legal issue before the Court was the validity of an order dated September 9, 2025, rejecting the discharge application of the applicant, Brijesh Singh. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, set aside the impugned order, holding that the competent authorities failed to apply their independent mind while approving the gang chart. The Court observed that signing a pre-printed rubber seal gang chart is prohibited under Rule 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from Case Crime No. 34/2022, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi. The case was pending as S.T. No. 176/2023 (State Vs. Akhilesh Singh and others) before the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court No. 13, Varanasi.
The applicant, Brijesh Singh, had moved a discharge application before the trial court, which was rejected via the impugned order dated September 9, 2025. Aggrieved by this rejection, the applicant approached the High Court filing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant, comprising advocates Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Birendra Singh, and Yash Pratap Singh, argued that the impugned order was bad in law and that the trial court had ignored the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant.
The primary contention was that the charge-sheet was not forwarded by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, violating the mandatory provision of Rule 26(2) of the Rules, 2021. Furthermore, it was submitted that the gang chart was not prepared in accordance with Form No. 1, as it lacked details of criminal history and the dossier of the accused was not appended.
Crucially, the counsel argued that “the competent authorities did not exercise their own independent mind while forwarding the gang chart and a pre-printed gang chart was signed by the competent authorities.” It was asserted that only two cases were shown against the applicant: in one (Case Crime No. 278 of 2020), he was exonerated, and in the other (Case Crime No. 181 of 2021), he was implicated with the aid of Section 120B IPC merely for allegedly providing his motorcycle to named accused persons.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the submissions, arguing that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and that the application lacked merit.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh examined the record and referenced previous judgments to underscore the necessity of strict adherence to the procedural safeguards in the Gangster Act.
The Court cited the Division Bench judgment in Asim @ Hassim Vs. State of U.P. (2023), which held that an FIR under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act is illegal if it fails to mention the corresponding anti-social activities under Section 2(b).
The Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal Nos. 777-778 of 2025, decided on May 23, 2025). Quoting from the Supreme Court judgment, the High Court reiterated that the satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act. The Supreme Court had observed:
“It is equally apposite to mention that the satisfaction must not be a cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by the recommending authority… Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gangchart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete nonapplication of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021 respectively.”
Applying these principles to the present case, Justice Singh examined the gang chart appended at page 34 of the record. The Court observed:
“From perusal of the gang chart, appended at page-34 onwards, it is clear that the authorities did not apply their independent mind and they signed on pre-printed format. As per Rule 17(2) of the Rules, 2021, signatures on pre-printed rubber seal gang chart are prohibited. Accordingly, the approval should be recorded on the gang chart by the competent authority only after proper use of independent mind.”
The Court further noted the requirements under Rule 26(1) and Rule 26(2) regarding the mandatory approval of the District Police In-Charge before submitting the gang chart to the court.
Decision In view of the findings that the approval process violated the statutory rules, the High Court allowed the application.
- The impugned order dated September 9, 2025, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court No. 13, Varanasi, was quashed.
- The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order on the discharge application of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Brijesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 48794 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Applicant: Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Birendra Singh, Yash Pratap Singh
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.
