Vinod Bihari Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 767 - UP Gangsters Act - S. 482 CrPC - Criminal Antecedents
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986- the satisfaction must not be a cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by the recommending authority. This is only possible when the approving authority meticulously refers to the materials on record on the basis of which he will come to the conclusion about existence of grounds justifying registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986 - Reiteration of the contents of the FIR or chargesheet does not constitute application of mind- Such satisfaction must stand on certain grounds; it cannot arise in absence of any basis, leaving the liberty of the accused in a precarious position. The basis of satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus with the facts present before the concerned authority. Thus, the decision of the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively must be at the behest of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on record- An independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang chart before him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens. (Para 51-54)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -Section 2(b)- The definition of the term “gang” is not attracted by mere association with a miscreant group- 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 (xvv) 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. (Para 18-25)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 [Section 528 BNSS] - The criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the proceedings if otherwise no offence is disclosed- Referred to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (Para 40)
The Supreme Court reiterates that the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the proceedings if otherwise no offence is disclosed. https://t.co/kiOHWn1UPh pic.twitter.com/VWFWezYEEa
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) May 30, 2025