LexLAL MOHD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 741 : 2025 INSC 811 Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2025) 14 May 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution of the appellants under the UP Gangsters Act satisfies the statutory thresholds prescribed under the Act, when it is based entirely on a single FIR, in which the appellants were already arrested and released on bail, and where no new act or omission had occurred between the date of registration of the First FIR i.e., 11.10.2022, and the preparation of the gang chart on 29.04.2023. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.2(b), (c) – First FIR was registered against the appellants and others on 11.10.2022 for alleged involvement in violence and vandalism following a social media post allegedly hurting their religious sentiments – Gang Chart was prepared on 29.04.2023, impugned FIR u/s.3(1), UP Gangsters Act was filed on 30.04.2023 – Appellants sought quashing thereof, refused by High Court – Interference with: Held: The procedural and substantive thresholds prescribed u/s.2(b) and 2(c), UP Gangsters Act have not been adequately met in the present case – The incident occurred on 10.10.2022, first FIR was filed on 11.10.2022 and the appellants were granted bail in January, 2023 – No new act or omission occurred between the registration of the foundational FIR on 11.10.2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29.04.2023 – Thus, gang chart was prepared on 29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR was filed on 30.04.2023, sans any fresh or intervening conduct – 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 – Thus, mere involvement of the accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, * Author 742 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity – Gang chart was 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 – Impugned judgment set aside – Impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed – Quashing. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 29, 30] Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.2(b), (c) – “Gang” and “gangster” – Determination. [Paras 12-14] Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Extraordinary legislation with stringent penal provisions – Invocation of – Standard of evidence – Exercise of power by State – Power conferred upon the State not an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play. [Paras 23-26] Case Law Cited Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2022] 17 SCR 622 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1991] Supp. 1 SCR 387 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 767; Gorakh Nath Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2589 of 2025 – referred to. Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P, 1987 SCC OnLine All 203 – referred to. List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Sections 2(b), (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Gang; Gangster; FIR under UP [2025] 5 S.C.R. 743 Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Gangsters Act; Gang chart; Quashing of FIR; Social media post; Incendiary social media post; Religious sentiments hurt; Communal protest; Communal flare-up; Protest against social media post; Language defamatory towards a particular religion; Disparaging comments about a particular religious belief; Vandalism of shop; Gang membership; Violence; Two different religious groups; Foundational FIR; Anti-social activities; Organised and continuous criminal activity; Prior or contin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.