In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the gangster charges against Vinod Bihari Lal, directing that the procedural framework under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 must be strictly followed. The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that authorities failed to adhere to statutory requirements while initiating proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
The case arose from FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at Police Station Naini, Allahabad, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act, based on five earlier FIRs alleging economic offences like forgery and cheating. The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order which had declined to quash the FIR and non-bailable warrants.
Court Disapproves Investigative Practice
The Court severely criticised the police investigation, noting:
“The chargesheet is devoid of any annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations or, at the very least, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent investigation was carried out.”
“We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be ‘proved’. We would like to remind that the role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine.”
Gang-Chart Procedure Not Followed
The Court found that the gang-chart against the appellant was approved without any meaningful application of mind:
“Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the gang-chart was forwarded…”
“Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang-chart, 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 non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021 respectively.”
“We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
The Court endorsed the requirement of independent satisfaction at every stage, as outlined under Rules 5, 16, and 17 of the 2021 Rules. It observed that any deviation from this framework violates the procedural sanctity and constitutional protections.
Clarification on Legal Definition of Gang
Interpreting the scope of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, the Court reiterated:
“A group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.”
“Although the present matter presently before us pertains solely to the subject FIR in question, yet it must be noted that an FIR registered under the Act of 1986 cannot be sustained in the absence of a base case/FIR.”
The Court further expressed concern that other similarly placed accused were not included in the gangster FIR, which raised questions about selective targeting and the integrity of the investigation.
Abuse of Process and Judicial Remedy
The Bench held that continuation of proceedings against the appellant would be unjust:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR, requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Non-interference in such a case would result in miscarriage of justice.”
“The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary. We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law.”
Supreme Court’s Final Order
Concluding the judgment, the Court ruled:
“We quash the subject FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered with the Police Station Naini, District Allahabad for the offence punishable under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and all further proceedings of the Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad.”
“We also quash the orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against the appellant and the order rejecting the application filed by the appellant for recall of the said non-bailable warrants respectively.”
Case Title: Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 777–778 of 2025
