Rameez Nemat vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1918 of 2026
Rameez Nemat
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 others
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ruby Choudhary,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.,
AFR
Court No. - 14
Reserved on: 26.05.2026
Delivered on: 29.05.2026
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri B. A. Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. A. Hussain
and Ms. Ruby Choudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
G.D. Bhatt, the learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the
validity of a charge-sheet dated 09.07.2025 filed in furtherance of FIR
No. 181/2024 lodged at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur for
the offence under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Gangsters Act’) against the applicant Ramiz Nemat and another accused
person Rizwan Zaheer. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of
an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Balrampur whereby the Court has taken cognizance of the aforesaid
offence and has summoned the petitioner to face trial.
2
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
3. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on 21.07.2024 at 00:40 hours by the
Ashok Singh, the Inspector-in-Charge of the police station, stating that
while the complainant was engaged in patrolling his police station area
in his government jeep along with Head Constable Ashok Yadav,
Constable Sumit Bhalla and Constable Shubham Sahu, he came to know
that there is an organized intra-district gang of the applicant Ramiz
Nemat and the other accused Rizwan Zaheer is its member. The
members of this gang commit offences like land grabbing, make fatal
assaults and commit murders for gaining temporal and pecuniary
advantages. The accused persons had committed offences under Sections
323, 504, 506, 327, 307 & 447 IPC by putting a gun on the chest of one
Abdul Mahmood Khan in the year 2002, regarding which Case Crime
No. 183/2022 is lodged in Police Station Tulsipur, in which a charge-
sheet has been submitted on 05.11.2022. The petitioner Ramiz Nemat
had killed one Shakeel Ahmad on 06.10.2023 for grabbing Rs. 25 lakh,
regarding which Case Crime No. 467/2023 has been lodged for the
offence under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Kokhraj, District
Kaushambi, in which a charge sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2024.
The complainant stated that the aforesaid facts prima facie establish that
the petitioner has an organized gang and he is habitual of committing
offences mentioned in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Chapter VI of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and he commits
offences in collaboration with the co-accused person Rizwan Zaheer.
Due to terror of the accused persons, no person can gather the courage to
lodge a report against them.
4. The FIR states that a gang-chart has been approved by the District
Magistrate, Balrampur after the recommendation of the higher officials.
The gang-chart annexed with the FIR mentions the Petitioner's name as
gang leader and the other accused Rizwan Zaheer is mentioned as its
member. The gang-chart shows involvement of the applicant in two
cases- (1) Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
327, 307 & 447 IPC, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur and (2)
Case Crime No. 467 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
3
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. The other accused-Rizwan Zaheer is
shown involved in a solitary case bearing Case Crime No. 183 of 2022,
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 327, 307 & 447 IPC. The other offence
under Section 302 IPC mentioned in the gang-chart is said to have been
committed by the petitioner alone and the other member of the gang is
not alleged to be involved in committing that offence.
5. Strangely, the Inspector In-charge, Police Station Tulsipur had himself
prepared the gang-chart on 07.07.2024 stating that the petitioner and the
other gang member Rizwan Zaheer have formed an organized gang.
They are active at the District level as well as inter-District level. They
commit offences and commit murders for gaining temporal and
pecuniary advantages. The complainant had mentioned in the gang-chart
that the gang-leader (the petitioner) had killed one Mohd. Shakeel at a
place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kokhraj, District
Kaushambi on 06.10.2023 in connection with monetary transactions
related to the sale-purchase of property, regarding which Case Crime No.
467 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC has been lodged at Police Station,
Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, in which a charge-sheet has been
submitted on 23.05.2024. Earlier also, Case Crime No. 183 of 2022,
under Sections 325, 504, 506, 327, 307 & 447 IPC, Police Station
Tulsipur, District Balrampur was lodged against the petitioner as well as
co-accused Rizwan Zaheer wherein a charge-sheet has been submitted
on 15.11.2023. The complainant - Inspector-in-Charge has written that
he had prepared the gang-chart after proper scrutiny of the attached
documents and there was sufficient ground to institute proceedings under
the Gangsters Act.
6. A charge-sheet dated 09.07.2025 has been submitted after
investigation in furtherance of the aforesaid FIR as per which, the
investigation was carried out by the Inspector In-Charge, Police Station
Pachpedwa and he found that the allegation levelled in the FIR regarding
the offence under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act was established
against the petitioner Rameez Nemat and the co-accused Rizwan Zaheer.
4
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
7. The learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) took cognizance of the
offence by means of an order dated 30.07.2025 which states that the
charge-sheet has been submitted before the court for taking cognizance.
The learned defence counsel has not submitted any written or oral
objections. The trial court has noted that the Inspector In-Charge,
Pachpedwa has submitted the charge-sheet on 09.07.2025 and the
supervising authority has forwarded the same with an endorsement dated
15.07.2025 that the charge-sheet be sent to the Court. The trial court has
noted that sufficient evidence is available in the case diary for making
out a case for trial of the accused persons. Accordingly, the trial court
took cognizance of the offences and the petitioner was summoned to
face the trial.
8. It has inter alia been pleaded in the petition challenging the validity of
the charge-sheet and the summoning order that earlier also an FIR
bearing Case Crime No. 54 of 2022 was lodged by the Inspector-in-
Charge, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur at Police Station
Tulsipur, District Balrampur for the offence under Section 3(1) of the
Gangsters Act against six persons, including the petitioner Rameez
Nemat and the other accused person Rizwan Zaheer, stating that when
the complainant was involved in patrolling in his area on 31.03.2022, he
came to know that Rizwan Zaheer (co-accused in the present case) has
formed an organized gang along with other accused persons. This gang
caused murder of former Chairman Firoz @ Babu on 04.01.2022, for
establishing their political clout and winning elections. FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 2/2022, under Sections 302 & 120B IPC was lodged against
unknown accused persons in this regard. During investigation, name of
the leader and members of the gang came to light and a charge-sheet was
submitted against them on 13.03.2022. During triple level Panchayat
Elections, a gang members committed another incident on 26.04.2022,
regarding which Case Crime No. 93/2021 was lodged for the offences
under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 504, 506, 393, 307, 427 & 435 IPC
and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. On 26.04.2021, FIR
bearing Case Crime No. 94/2021 was lodged for the offences under
5
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
Sections 147, 149, 435, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and a charge-sheet has
already been submitted. On 16.08.2020, the accused persons committed
another offence regarding which Case Crime No. 195/2020 was lodged
under Sections 323/506 IPC and a charge-sheet has been submitted in
that matter also. The gang-chart annexed with the said FIR was prepared
on 24.03.2022 and it shows involvement of the applicant and the other
co-accused person in the aforesaid three offences. Rest of the four
persons accused in Case Crime No. 54/2022 were shown to be involved
in a solitary case bearing Case Crime No. 2/2022, under Sections
302/120B IPC, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur.
9. It has also been pleaded that while the petitioner was already in jail,
another FIR was lodged against him on 30.10.2024, i.e. Case Crime No.
299/2024, under Sections 308(5), 351(3) & 61 BNS, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, in which the petitioner has been
granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 11.06.2025
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 653 of 2025.
10. It has further been pleaded in the petition that gang-chart has been
prepared in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the
Gangsters Act and 16(1) and 17 of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities Prevention Rules, 2021.
11. The State has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Special Judge
(POCSO Act) was conferred with the powers of the Special Judge
(Gangsters Act) and, therefore, cognizance and summoning order has
been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon the court. It
has further been stated that the gang-chart was approved in a joint
meeting of the District Magistrate Balrampur and Superintendent of
Police, Balrampur held on 18.07.2024. Minutes of the meeting have
been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1, wherein it is recorded that the
Superintendent of Police insisted for granting approval to the gang-chart
keeping in view the public interest. The District Magistrate examined the
gang-chart and the annexed documents. The gang-chart mentions two
6
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
criminal cases in which charge-sheet has been submitted. The
Superintendent of Police informed about the criminal history of the
accused persons and their criminal activities. After perusal of the
material available on record and the criminal history of the accused
persons, the District Magistrate found sufficient grounds for approval of
the gang-chart and, accordingly, he approved it.
12. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner
Rameez Nemat is involved in as many as 10 criminal cases, which are as
follows:-
Sl.
No.
Case
Crime
No.
Sections Police
Station
District Result Status in
Court
1. 93/21 147/149/332/353/50
4/506/393/307/427/
435 IPC & 7 CL.
Act
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Acquitted on
29.11.2025
dated
05.10.2021
2. 94/21 147/149/435/427/
323/504/506 IPC
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for evidence
19.05.2026
dated
28.05.2021
3. 02/22 302/120B IPC Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Arguments
complete,
next date
fixed is
07.05.2026
dated
13.03.2022
4. 54/22 3(1) of the UP
Gangster Act
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for
arguments is
12.05.2026
dated
17.09.2022
5. Nil/22 3(2) National
Security Act dated
19.05.2022
Tulsipur Balrampur Approval
rejected by
Advisory Board
dated
28.06.2022
6. 183/22 323/504/506/327/
307/447 IPC
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for
arguments is
12.05.2026
dated
05.11.2022
7. 467/23 302 IPC Kokhraj Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for charge is
12.05.2026
dated
23.05.2024
8. 181/24 3(1) of the UP
Gangster Act
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for charge is
07.05.2026
dated
09.07.2025
9. 186/24 419/420/467/468/
471/120B IPC
Tulsipur Balrampur Charge Sheet
Next date
for charge is
19.05.2026
dated
26.01.2025
10. 299/24 308(5)/351(3)/ 61
BNS
Kotwali
Nagar
Balrampur Under
consideration
7
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
13. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit refuting the averments
made in the counter affidavit.
14. Although the learned Counsel for the petitioner had initially
submitted that cognizance of an offence under the Gangsters Act can be
taken only by the Special Judge, Gangsters Act and the Learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act does not have to take cognizance of the offence
under the Gangsters Act, but after the State filed the counter affidavit
and the learned AGA-I produced a copy of the Notification whereby
jurisdiction in respect of the offence under the Gangsters Act has been
conferred upon the Special Judge POCSO Act, Balrampur, he did not
press this submission.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
narration made in the FIR that the complainant Inspector-in-Charge
came to know about the existence of the gang and its criminal activities
during patrolling on 20.07.2024, is patently false as the Inspector-in-
Charge himself had prepared and forwarded the gang chart on
07.07.2024. It indicates that the story narrated by the complainant police
officer is false on the face of the FIR itself and it implies malice on the
part of the police authorities.
16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
Superintendent of Police has forwarded the gang-chart on 16.07.2024.
The meeting of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police
is alleged to have taken place on 18.07.2024. The Superintendent of
Police has signed the minutes of meeting mentioning the date of signing
as 18.07.2024 whereas the District Magistrate has not mentioned the
date of putting his signatures on the minutes of the meeting, which
shows that in fact no meeting of the Superintendent of Police and
District Magistrate was held and the District Magistrate has approved the
chart in a mechanical manner without holding a meeting with the
Superintendent of Police.
8
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Bihari v.
State of UP & Anr : 2025 SCC Online SC 1216 and Gabbar Singh @
Devendra Pratap Singh @ Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. : 2026 SCC
Online SC 451 and three decisions rendered by Division Benches of this
Court in Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishrav. State of U.P. :
2023 SCC Online All 2975, Abdul Latif @ Mustak Khan v. Sate of
U.P.: 2024:AHC:119716-DB and Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat v. State of
U.P. :2024 SCC OnLine All 5848.
18. After perusing the minutes of meeting of the Superintendent of
Police and the District Magistrate annexed with the counter affidavit, I
am satisfied that the meeting was held and I turn down the submission of
the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the gang-chart has not been
approved in a joint meeting of the District Magistrate and the
Superintendent of Police.
19. Although the District Magistrate ought to have mentioned the date
under the signatures put on the minutes of the meeting, like the
Superintendent of Police has done, the mere non-mention of the date
under the signature would not conclusively establish that no meeting of
the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police was held.
20. Further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides as follows: -
“114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. — The Court may
presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the
facts of the particular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume—
*
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;”
Similarly, Section 119 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides
that: -
9
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
“ 119. Court may presume existence of certain facts . —(1) The Court
may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the
facts of the particular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume that—
(e) judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;”
Therefore, it has to be presumed that the meeting of the District
Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police was held in a regular
manner.
21. Now I proceed to examine whether the allegations levelled in the
FIR and the material collected during investigation justify the
submission of the charge-sheet and whether there was sufficient ground
before the trial Court for taking cognizance of the offence under the
Gangsters Act.
22. The allegations levelled in the FIR are that that while the
complainant Inspector-in-charge of the Police Station was engaged in
patrolling his police station area, he came to know that there is an
organized intra-district gang of the applicant Ramiz Nemat and the other
accused Rizwan Zaheer is its member. The members of this gang commit
offences like land grabbing, make fatal assaults and commit murders for
gaining temporal and pecuniary advantages. They are involved in Case
Crime No. 183/2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 327, 307 & 447 IPC,
Police Station Tulsipur, and the petitioner Ramiz Nemat is involved in
Case Crime No. 467/2023 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. The complainant stated that the aforesaid
facts prima facie establish that the petitioner has an organized gang and
he is habitual of committing offences mentioned in Chapter XVI of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Chapter VI of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
(BNS) and he commits offences in collaboration with the co-accused
person Rizwan Zaheer. Due to terror of the accused persons, no person
can gather the courage to lodge a report against them.
10
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
23. The gang-chart annexed with the FIR mentions the Petitioner's name
as gang leader and the other accused Rizwan Zaheer is mentioned as its
member. The gang-chart shows involvement of the applicant in two
cases- (1) Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
327, 307 & 447 IPC, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur and (2)
Case Crime No. 467 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. The other accused-Rizwan Zaheer is
shown involved in a solitary case bearing Case Crime No. 183 of 2022,
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 327, 307 & 447 IPC. The other offence
under Section 302 IPC mentioned in the gang-chart is said to have been
committed by the petitioner alone and the other member of the gang is
not alleged to be involved in committing that offence.
24. Strangely, the Inspector In-charge, Police Station Tulsipur had
himself prepared the gang-chart on 07.07.2024 and had forwarded the
same to his higher authorities. stating that the petitioner and the other
gang member Rizwan Zaheer have formed an organized gang. They are
active at the District level as well as inter-District level. They commit
offences for gaining temporal and pecuniary advantages. The
complainant had mentioned in the gang-chart that the gang-leader (the
petitioner) had killed one Mohd. Shakeel at a place within the
jurisdiction of Police Station, Kokhraj, District Kauhambi on 06.10.2023
in connection with monetary transactions related to the sale-purchase of
property, regarding which Case Crime No. 407 of 2023, under Section
302 IPC has been lodged at Police Station, Kokhraj, District Kaushambi,
in which a charge-sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2025. Earlier also,
Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 327, 307 &
447 IPC, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur was lodged against
the petitioner as well as co-accused Rizwan Zaheer wherein a charge-
sheet has been submitted on 15.11.2022. The complainant - Inspector-in-
Charge has written that he had prepared the gang-chart after proper
scrutiny of the attached documents and there was sufficient ground to
institute proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
11
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
25. It is strange that the Inspector In-Charge who had himself prepared
gang-chart on 07.07.2024 and had forwarded the same to the Circle
Officer, has written in the FIR lodged on 21.07.2024 that he came to
know about the existence of the gang and involvement of its members in
commission of offences namely Case Crime No. 183 of 2023 and Case
Crime No. 467 of 2023, during patrolling in the area on 20.07.2024.
Therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the narration made in the FIR that the complainant
Inspector-in-Charge came to know about the existence of the gang and
its criminal activities during patrolling on 20.07.2024, is patently false as
the Inspector-in-Charge himself had prepared and forwarded the gang
chart on 07.07.2024. It indicates that the story narrated by the
complainant police officer is false on the face of the FIR itself and it
implies malice on the part of the police authorities.
26. A charge-sheet dated 09.07.2025 has been submitted after
investigation in furtherance of the aforesaid FIR as per which, the
investigation was carried out by the Inspector In-Charge, Police Station
Pachpedwa and he found that the allegation levelled in the FIR regarding
the offence under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act was established
against the petitioner Rameez Nemat and the co-accused Rizwan Zaheer.
27. The learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) took cognizance of the
offence by means of an order dated 30.07.2025 which states that the
charge-sheet has been submitted before the court for taking cognizance.
The learned defence counsel has not submitted any written or oral
objections. The trial court has noted that the Inspector In-Charge,
Pachpedwa has submitted the charge-sheet on 09.07.2025 and the
supervising authority has forwarded the same with an endorsement dated
15.07.2025 that the charge-sheet be sent to the Court. The trial court has
noted that sufficient evidence is available in the case diary for making
out a case for trial of the accused persons. Accordingly, the trial court
took cognizance of the offences and the petitioner was summoned to
face the trial.
12
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
28. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to have a look
at the definition of “gang” as set out in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986,
which reads thus: -
“(b) “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or
collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation,
or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or
of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person , indulge in anti-social
activities, namely—[…]”
29. Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 should be read alongwith Rule 3 of
the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangster Rules 2021’), which
provides as follows: -
“3. Conditions of criminal liability.- (1) The offences mentioned in sub
sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act shall be
punishable under the Act only if they are:—
(a) committed for disturbing public order ; or
(b) committed by causing violence or threat or display of violence, or
by intimidation, or coercion or otherwise, either singly or collectively,
for the purpose of obtaining any unfair worldly, economic, material,
pecuniary or other advantage to himself or to any other person .”
30. In Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court carried out a detailed analysis of the
provisions of the Gangsters Act and the Rules and the relevant passage
of the judgment is being reproduced below: -
“20. The definition of “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986
comprises the following essentials;
i. A group of persons i.e., there can be no gang of one person;
ii. The group of persons, acting either individually or collectively,
indulges in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of
Section 2(b);
iii. Indulgence in such anti-social activities is by means of violence, or
threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise;
iv. Use of such means is with the object of disturbing public order, or
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
for himself or any other person.
13
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
21. It is apparent that the definition of the term “gang” is not attracted
by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to
metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must be
committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a group of
persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when the
requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
22. This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported
as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as
“gangster” when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of the
enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly stated or
otherwise, with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or
any other person. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one of the
members of the group may also act singly, with the object of
disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be termed as
“gangster”. A member of a “gang” acting either singly or collectively
may be termed as a member of the “gang” and comes within the
definition of “gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in
any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the
Gangsters Act.
xxx
27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are
to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the
provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of
a single offence/FIR/charge-sheet, if it is found that the accused is a
member of a “gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by
violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or
otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself
or any other person and he/she can be termed as “gangster” within
the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for
the offences under the Gangsters Act.”
(Emphasis in original)
23. A Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar
Dixit v. State of U.P., reported as 1987 SCC OnLine All 203, while
deciding on the constitutional validity of the Act of 1986 noted 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
14
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
for himself. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“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. 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.”
(Emphasis in original)
24. A more lucid exposition of the essential requirements was provided
in the recent decision of Sukarmpal v. State of U.P., reported in 2024
SCC OnLine All 5848. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“11. From the definition of gang under Section 2(b) of the Gangster
Act, it is clear that merely becoming a member of a gang will not be
punishable unless the gang falls within the purview of Section 2(b) of
Gangster Act and for the punishment of the member or organizer or
leader of a gang under the Gangster Act, conditions mentioned in
Rule 3 must be fulfilled, which prescribes that offence mentioned in
Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act must be
committed for disturbing public order or committed by causing
violence or threat or coercion or otherwise for the purpose of
obtaining unfair trustworthy, pecuniary, economic, material or other
advantage. Therefore, merely because a person has committed any
offence mentioned in Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of sub-section (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act will not itself come within the purview
of the Gangster Act unless he is member of a gang falling under
Section 2(b) of Gangster Act.
12. Even the Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules itself provides that, if a
member of a gang has committed any offence which comes within the
purview of the Act along with any other members then he will be
presumed to be a gang. Therefore, punishing a person under the
Gangster Act basic condition to be a member of a gang under Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act must be satisfied.
13. Rule 6 of the Gangster Rules also provides that at the time of
preparation of gang chart, it must be mentioned that act of gang falls
15
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
within the purview of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act. Therefore, it is
clear that for bringing an offence within the purview of Gangster Act,
it must be committed by a member of a gang for the object mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act by doing the activities mentioned
in Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Gangster
Act. Therefore, if any offence is committed whether the same falls
within the category of Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act or not, that will not come within the purview of the
Gangster Act unless the same is done with the object mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act.”
(Emphasis in original)
25. 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 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.
*
30. The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier
attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing
beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. Further, it remains
obscure how the investigating authorities could assert that the offence
under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively stands “proved” against the
appellant sans enclosing any documentary proved. 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.
31. It is noteworthy to mention that the subject FIR was registered after
approximately a year from the date of the registration of the first base
FIR. In the three base FIRs - FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017, and
FIR No. 244/2017, respectively, the allegations against the appellant
pertain to offences under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC and thus,
may fall within the scope of anti-social activities itemized under Section
2(b). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these acts were
committed by any of the means specified therein, they do not, even in
the remotest possibility, appear to us that they had been committed with
the object of disturbing public order or to gain any undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
*
16
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
36. 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.
*
59. We also deem it necessary to make certain observations regarding
the investigation conducted pursuant to the approval of the gang-chart
and the registration of the subject FIR under the Act of 1986
respectively. Rule 20 mandates that, during the course of investigation,
evidence pertaining to the elements of economic, material, and worldly
benefits must be specifically collected. Upon being satisfied that
credible, substantial, and logically coherent evidence has been
compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Additional
Superintendent of Police shall forward the report to the Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police for sanction.
60. In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based on
the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were found to be
involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by forming a
gang with the objective of deriving economic and monetary benefits,
and that a prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet under
Section(s) 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986.”
31. The judgment in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) was followed
in Gabbar Singh v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 451, in which
the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that: -
“11. We fall back upon the principle that when a particular thing is to
be done, it should be done in the manner stipulated; here statutorily
prescribed, or not at all. Especially when at stake is the liberty of an
individual, precious to all and possible of breach only in accordance
with law. More so in the precarious nature of the law, which permits
mere naming of a person, as a gangster and automatic condemnation,
which perilous consequences we leave to be considered in an
appropriate case.”
32. The difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ was
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhash
Bhandari v. District Magistrate : (1987) 4 SCC 685. There was a tender
for the supply of ballast in PWD. It was alleged that on account of the
appellant’s terror no other person submits any tender against him and he
obtained tenders at rates of his choice. If any other person submitted his
tender, the appellant terrorized him. However, another person submitted
17
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
tender at a lower rate, which was accepted. For this reason the appellant
bore a grudge against the complainant. For this reason, the appellant and
his accomplices fired at the complainant with intention of killing him
and they threw hand-grenades which fell on the car of the complainant.
Consequently, there was a commotion. Traffic was obstructed and public
tranquility was disturbed. In the backdrop of the above mentioned facts,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to formulate the question to be
decided as follows:—
“8. The main question which falls for decision is whether the act
referred to in the grounds of detention is directed against certain
individuals creating a law and order problem or the reach and
potentiality of the act is so deep as to disturb the society to the extent of
causing a general disturbance of public tranquility.”
The aforesaid question was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
following manner:—
“9. It has now been well settled by several decisions of this Court (the
latest one being Gulab Mehra v. State of U.P. [(1987) 4 SCC 302]
judgment which was pronounced by us on September 15, 1987) that
public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the
country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public
order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals
which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general
disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and
its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which
determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law
and order or it affects public order. It has also been observed by this
Court that an act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its
quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be
very different. Therefore it is the impact, reach and potentiality of the
act which in certain circumstances affect the even tempo of life of the
community and thereby public order is jeopardized . Such an
individual act can be taken into consideration by the detaining
authority while passing an order of detention against the person
alleged to have committed the act.
10. In the instant case the alleged act of assault by firearms is confined
to the complainant Surya Kumar and not to others. It is an act
infringing law and order and the reach and effect of the act is not so
extensive as to affect a considerable members (sic number) of the
society. In other words, this act does not disturb public tranquillity nor
does it create any terror or panic in the minds of the people of the
locality nor does it affect in any manner the even tempo of the life of the
18
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
community. This criminal act emanates from business rivalry between
the detenus and the complainant. Therefore such an act cannot be the
basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass an
order of detention on the ground that the impugned act purports to
affect public order i.e. the even tempo of the life of the community
which is the sole basis for clamping the order of detention…..”
(emphasis supplied)
33. In State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini : (1988) 1 SCC 287, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -
12. ... whether an act relates to law and order or to public order
depends upon the effect of the act on the life of the community or in
other words the reach and effect and potentiality of the act; if so put as
to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community, it
will be an act which will affect public order.
13. In the instant case, the criminal acts referred to in Ground 1 are to
the effect that on 4-6-1985 at about 11 p.m. some persons informed the
complainant that his brother had been shot by some persons and when
the complainant reached the spot he found his brother Vishnu Narain
Awasthi lying in a pool of blood and he had already died. Crime Case
No. 109 of 1985 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Ghazipur
Police Station. This incident is confined to individual persons and it is
private crime as distinct from public crime. It does not in any way
affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor does it affect the
peace and tranquillity of people of that particular locality where the
crime has been committed. So far as the second crime referred to in
Ground 2 is concerned, it is to the effect that the complainant went to
Lucknow Jail along with his son, Ram Kumar and son-in-law, Nand
Kishore to see an accused in the District Jail. They could not meet the
accused. Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore proceeded towards home in
one rickshaw while the complainant was coming by another rickshaw.
When they reached a little distance from the jail near the residence of
the Jail Superintendent at about 1.45 p.m. the detenus Rajiv Hazra and
Kamal Kishore Saini along with another one Anandi Shukla said to be
the accomplice of one Ram Gopal, came on a scooter, stopped it and
challenged Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore and the complainant. They
fired at them. The complainant, Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore ran
helter-skelter. The accused chased Ram Kumar and fired twice or thrice
and in consequence of it Ram Kumar fell dead on the spot and Nand
Kishore and the rickshaw-puller sustained injuries. On these basis
Crime Case No. 222 of the 1985 under Sections 302/307 IPC was
registered on 13-6-1985. This firing was made in a public street during
the daytime. This incident does affect public order as its reach and
impact is to disturb public tranquillity and it affects the even tempo of
19
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
the life of the people in the locality where the incident is alleged to have
occurred. Therefore, the finding of the High Court with regard to this
incident that it did not disturb in any way the public order is not legal
and valid.”
34. The difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ has been
considered in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in
Abhayraj Gupta v. Central Jail , 2021 SCC OnLine All 900, in which
after considering various precedents on the point, the Division Bench
concluded that: -
“32. The law which has emerged from the precedents on this point is
that public order is said to embrace more of the community than law
and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community
taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The
contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to
affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed
against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of
causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of
disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality
which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of
law and order or a disturbance to public order. It means therefore that
the question whether a person has only committed a breach of law and
order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the
public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the
act upon the society, which depends the facts of each particular case.”
35. In the present case, there is no material that the act alleged by the
petitioner had the effect of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the
community or the public at large, as distinguished from the act directed
against the victims of the offences. There is no material to establish that
offences committed by the petitioner or his gang disturb the society to
the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. There is
no material to establish that the acts alleged had been committed for
disturbing public order. Therefore, the requirement of Section 2(b) of the
Gangsters Act and Rule 3 (1) (a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021, is not
fulfilled.
36. The other contingency in which a person may be tried for an offence
under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, read with Rule 3(1)(c) of the
20
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
Gangsters Rules, 2021 is that the offence was committed with the object
of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage.
37. Besides a bald allegation levelled in the FIR that the petitioner
Ramiz Nemat had killed one Shakeel Ahmad on 06.10.2023 for grabbing
Rs. 25 lakh, regarding which Case Crime No. 467/2023 has been lodged
for the offence under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Kokhraj, District
Kaushambi, in which a charge sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2024,
there is no material available on record to even prima facie establish that
the petitioner had committed the aforesaid offence for any pecuniary
advantage. There is no charge for the offence of extortion in that case.
38. In absence of the petitioner having been charged for the offence of
extortion or attempt to make extortion of money, it cannot be said that
merely because the petitioner is an accused for an offence under Section
302 IPC, the said offence was committed for gaining any pecuniary
advantage.
39. The investigating officer has committed the charge-sheet without
recording satisfaction that the offences mentioned in the gang-chart were
committed for disturbing public order or with the object of gaining any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage. The
Superintendent of Police has forwarded the gang-chart and the District
Magistrate has approved the same without recording a satisfaction
regarding fulfilment of the conditions of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters
Act and Rule 3(1) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021.
40. The learned trial Court has taken also taken cognizance of the
offence in a mechanical manner, without recording a satisfaction
regarding fulfilment of the conditions of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters
Act and Rule 3(1) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021, which vitiates the order
taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the accused to face the
trial, for which reason the summoning order is unsustainable in law.
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed . The
charge-sheet dated 09.07.2025 filed in furtherance of FIR No. 181/2024
21
NA528 No. - 1918 of 2026
lodged at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur for the offence
under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act against the applicant Ramiz
Nemat and co-accused Rizwan Zaheer and the order dated 30.07.2025
passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balrampur taking cognizance
of the aforesaid offence and summoning the petitioner to face trial, are
quashed . The necessary consequences to follow.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
May 29, 2026
Pradeep/-
Digitally signed by :-
PRADEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench