LAL MOHD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

13. While adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the UP Gangsters Act, a Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P.12, held that the term ‘gang’ means a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise indulge in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue or pecuniary material or other advantage for himself. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: “12. Section 2(b) defines the term “Gang” to mean a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order of gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage for himself. S. 2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in the concept of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. 1987 SCC OnLine All 203. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. which is resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then we have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word “Gangster”. It means a member or leader or organiser of a group which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the various sub-clauses of cl. (b) of S. 2, by use of violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc. S. 3(i) lays down the penalty for being the member or leader or organiser of a group which engages or indulges in the kind of unsocial activities enumerated under S. 2(b) by use of violence etc.”

14. From the above statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the legal position concerning the determination of “gang” and “gangster” under the UP Gangsters Act, has been well-defined. The statutory scheme delineates that a “gang” constitutes a group of persons who, whether acting singularly or in concert, perpetrate the enumerated anti-social activities through the instrumentality of violence, threat, intimidation, or coercion with the manifest object of either disturbing public order or procuring undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantages. From the above exposition of law, 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 activities enumerated in Clauses (i) to (xv) 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.

15. The impugned FIR dated 30th April, 2023, lodged by Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi, narrates that the appellants led an organised gang whose members, armed with lathis and glass bottles, attacked the shop owned by Vipin Modanwal and others over a social media post disparaging a specific religion, which created chaos, terror and disrupted public order. The impugned FIR reads thus: “Copy of application/complaint in Hindi written by Head Constable (HM), Police station Kharagpur, District Gonda……. I, Inspector, Incharge, Arun Kumar Dwivedi alongwith S.I. Akhilesh Yadav, S.I. Diwakar Mishra, Head Constable Munawar Ali, Head Constable Raj Kishore, Constable Satyajit Morya, constable Ritesh Gupta, W/Ct. Shilpa 756 Yadav, W/Ct. Satakshi Shukla in government vehicle UP 43 G 0352 with its driver Constable Umender Yadav was on the patrolling of the area for controlling the crimes. Meanwhile I came to know that accused persons Lal Mohd. son of Munir Ahmed resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa, Kharagpur town District Gonda has an organized gang. He alongwith his accomplices Ramzan son of Usman Gani resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Rehman son of Usman Gani resident of Rastogi Mohalla, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Lukman son of Usman Gani resident of Mohalla Rastogi, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Shamsher Ali son of Mohd. Vaki resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Mohd. Yusuf son of Ali Raza resident of Old Bazar, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Tanvir Ali son of Shamsher Ali resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Taukir Ali son of Shamsher Ali resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Waris son of Wali Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Yasin son of Sabir resident of Chikwa Badhiya, Kharagpur town, District, Gonda, Sakir son of Idu resident Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Nakane son of Usman Ali resident of Rastogi Mohalla, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Akram son of Wali Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Aslam son of Wali Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Liyakat son of Aliraza resident of Old Bazar, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Siraz Ali son of Hamid Ali resident of Darzi, Kharagpur town West, District Gonda, Meraz son of Salim resident of Kharagpur town West, District Gonda, Rehmat Ali son of Hamid Ali resident of Kathariya Mohalla, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Noor Alam son of Nazir resident of Darzi, Kharagpur town East, District Gonda, Nazir son of Badal resident of Kharagpur town East, District Gonda, Rizwan son of Ramzan Ali resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Ramzan Ali son of Munir [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Ahmed resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Jahir alias Jahiruddin son of Lal Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Asif son of Shabir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Arif son of Shabir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Shamim alias Nibaru son of Shafi resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Danish son of Ali Mohd, resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sonu son of Lallu resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Banthe son of Shyam Mohd. resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Zuber son of Teni resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sakil son of Sabbir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sameer son of Sabbir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Arbaz son of Mobin resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Imran son of Chhotu alias Shafikurrehman resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Azad alias Aizaz son of Irfan resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Saif son of Manuddin resident of Kathariya town, Kharagpur, District Gonda, Azmat Ali son of Tinai resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Rizwan son of Abdul Hamid resident of Darzi East, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Jokhu son of Tinai resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Asif alias Raj son of Raju resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Imran son of Rafique resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Gulam Haider son of Bakridi resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda organized with their common intention, on the comments made on Mohd. Prophet on 10.10.2022 at 8.00 PM at the shop of Vipin Modanwal situated at Subji Mandi, Kharagpur town having lathis and glass bottles in their hands, hurled abuses and by extending threat to kill, they started vandalizing the shop. When they were forbade to do so, then they started attacking at Vipin, Sonu, Durgesh, Sarvesh at their heads with lathis, wooden sticks and glass bottles with intention to kill them. Due to this there was a chaotic situation in the market and shopkeepers started running away by closing their 758 shops. Consequently it created an atmosphere of fear and terror in entire area and disturbed the law and order. This organized gang/group was being led by Lal Mohd. son of Munir Ahmed. Due to criminal acts committed by aforementioned gang and its members, general public has suffered with heavy financial loss and law and order remained disturbed for many days in the area due to disturbance of social and religious harmony. Crime case under sections 147/148/149/427/307/323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code and section 7 of C.L.A. Act was registered against accused persons and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been forwarded to the Hon’ble Court, which is under consideration of Hon’ble Court. Act committed by accused persons falls under the category of offence mentioned in Chapters 16 and 22 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not interest in the general public that they set scot free in the society. Offence committed by the accused persons falls under the purview of section 2(Kha) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. In order to curb these criminal acts of these accused persons and in order to control the crime, a Gang Chart has got prepared under section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and in reference to approval accorded by the District Magistrate, Gonda on 29.04.2023, gangster case be registered against Gang Leader Lal Mohd. above named and his above named members. Note – I, Inspector Incharge has got written this complaint through S.I. Diwakar on my dictation on the spot. Sd/- in English Illegible (Arun Kumar Dwivedi), Inspector Incharge, police station Kharagpur District Gonda. Dated: 30.04.2023. Note – I, Nitish Mani Tripathi do certify that contents of written complaint have been mentioned by me in verbatim in CCTNS except typographical errors.” (emphasis supplied)

16. A careful scrutiny of the impugned FIR reveals crucial deficiencies and fundamental flaws. The impugned FIR merely refers to an isolated [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. incident that occurred on 10th October 2022, involving allegations of vandalism at Vipin Modanwal’s shop following disparaging comments made about a particular religious belief by Rikki Modanwal which the appellants follow. The absence of any subsequent criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal behavior between the foundational FIR (Case Crime No. 294 of 2022) registered on 11th October, 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023 demonstrates that this single criminal incident dated 10th October, 2022, regardless of its severity, does not constitute a sustained pattern of activities.

17. While the FIR alleges that, appellant No. 1, lead an ‘organized gang’ with numerous co-accused, it provides no substantive evidence of hierarchical structure, systematic planning, or coordinated criminal activities that would distinguish this group from a group of individuals involved in a spontaneous communal protest. The impugned FIR contains a mere conjectural statement, neither corroborated nor substantiated by the facts available on record. The impugned FIR’s narrative suggests a reactive response to instigation caused by an inflammatory religious post rather than premeditated gang activity. The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.

18. The whole incident appears to have been triggered by the incendiary social media post made by Rikki Mondalwal tending to defile the religious sentiments of the appellants and other co-accused rather than by calculated gang objectives of securing material advantages or establishing territorial control. Furthermore, the FIR does not demonstrate any pattern of the offending group engaging in the enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single incident, thereby failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is designed to address.

19. It is an undisputed fact that no new act or omission occurred between the registration of the first FIR on 11th October, 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023. This temporal gap, devoid of any additional criminal activity, undermines the prosecution’s endeavour to demonstrate ongoing gang operations or escalating criminal behaviour that would justify the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act. Mere involvement of the accused appellants in a 760 demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. Moreover, the impugned FIR fails to distinguish adequately between the roles of the nominated accused persons.

20. In the present case, the incident occurred on 10th October, 2022, and the appellants were granted bail in January, 2023, after the competent courts found no criminal history and only simple injuries resulting from the altercation. The gang chart was prepared and approved on 29th April, 2023, and the impugned FIR was registered on 30th April, 2023, sans any fresh or intervening conduct. This sequence indicates that the gang chart was manifestly a post-facto construction aimed at recharacterizing an already investigated and prosecuted communal altercation as an act of organised crime, without any new evidence to warrant such a serious escalation.

21. Furthermore, the impugned FIR was registered coincidentally just 13 days after appellant No. 1’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for the Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April, 2023. The appellants’ representation dated 25th April, 2023 addressed to the UP-State Election Commission and the Party President, regarding the possibility of false implication under the UP Gangsters Act, preceded the actual registration of the FIR. This timing lends credence to their contention that the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations.

22. When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the UP Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made by one against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose. The afterthought application of the UP Gangsters Act in the present case, in absence of any subsequent criminal conduct of the appellant, bears the hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act’s legitimate objectives.

23. It is trite law that any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive. This principle, firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

24. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the State has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play.

25. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.

26. In the present case, the impugned FIR and the gang chart fail to meet this essential threshold, as they rest largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity as contemplated by the Act. With the trial in the previous FIR remaining inconclusive, compelling the appellants to undergo another prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act for the same set of allegations, would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a gross miscarriage of justice.

27. Before concluding, we would like to make a reference to a recent Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh13, whereby the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to consider framing guidelines-cum-parameters which are to be followed before invoking provisions of the UP Criminal Appeal No. 2589 of 2025. 762 Gangsters Act. In compliance with that directive, the Uttar Pradesh State Government vide Office Memorandum Office Memorandum- Circular No. 4619, framed guidelines for invoking the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act, directing strict compliance with those guidelines, read with the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 framed under the UP Gangsters Act, regarding the preparation of the gang chart. The said guidelines have also been made part of a judgment in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh.14

28. These guidelines were not placed on record by the appellants in the present case (as they were issued subsequent to the filing of this petition), however, upon a prima facie examination, it appears to us that the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act in the present matter would not withstand scrutiny even under these guidelines which emphasise the need for rigorous assessment of the gravity of underlying offences, established patterns of criminal activity, and proper verification of criminal antecedents before invoking the Act. The allegations in the present case fail to meet this rigour. However, we clarify that this observation is based purely on the facts of this case and not a definitive finding on the application of the guidelines, which were not subject to adversarial scrutiny in the present appeal.

29. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the procedural and substantive thresholds prescribed under Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act have not been adequately met in the present case. Hence, the impugned FIR dated 30th April, 2023, namely CC No. 132 of 2023, does not stand to scrutiny. The impugned judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, rendered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, stands set aside.

30. The impugned FIR CC No. 132 of 2023 and all proceedings consequential thereto stand quashed. However, we deem it proper to clarify that our observations and analysis on the foundational FIRs are strictly circumscribed to the limited purpose of evaluating the impugned FIR under the UP Gangsters Act and will not have any 2025 INSC 267. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. bearing on the two pending FIRs, namely, CC No. 294 of 2022 and CC No. 296 of 2022, which shall be dealt with on their own merits by the Courts concerned.

31. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey