Smt Aalia Vs State Of UP: Invoking Gangster Act Against Woman With Only Two Pending Cases Is An Act Of Prejudice And Malafide Intentions

Date of Judgement:
5th August 2021

Coram:
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Parties:
Petitioner: Smt Aalia
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh

Overview

• The Applicant is a lady who had been charged with two criminal cases under Section 411 and Section 489B respectively, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• However, the Applicant was slammed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
• The Allahabad High Court, while hearing the bail plea of the Applicant, had expressed its displeasure on the Kanpur Nagar District Magistrate’s decision.
• Issues Involved
• What are the circumstances under which the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act can be invoked against a person?

Important Provisions

1. Section 411 of IPC- The Section provides punishment for dishonestly receiving and retaining of a stolen property, with imprisonment for a maximum of three years, or with fine, or both.
2. Section 489B of IPC- The Section prescribes punishment for using forged and counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes as genuine, with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a maximum of ten years, along with fine.
3. The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986- The Act was enacted in 1986 to prevent and punish the gangsters and persons engaged in anti-social activities in the state.

Judgement Analysis

• The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was perturbed by this case.
• The Learned Judge claimed it to be a “strange case”, and observed that the Court has experienced in a number of cases in which sometimes the police functionaries act in an eccentric way.
• Similarly the present one is an exemplar wherein the act of police functionaries smacks of prejudice and malafide.
• It further directed the District Magistrate of Kanpur Nagar to submit a personal affidavit stating the circumstances that led the Magistrate to slap the Gangster Act against the Applicant, and postponed the next hearing to 17th August 2021.
• The main aim of the UP Gangster Act was to reprimand the known gangsters in the State of Uttar Pradesh at that time, that is, 1986. Since its inception, several gangsters were arrested, however, they all succeeded in getting bails.
• The Government soon lost its interest in invoking the Act due to certain loopholes therein and the easy provision for bail. Later, the Government again began to invoke the Act actively.
• However, this time it was not only against gangsters but also covered several other persons. This created a lot of controversies since the Act did not even leave the journalists.
• Recently, even some of the Anti-CAA protesters were arrested under the Act.
• This indicates that the Act has been reluctantly used by the State Government. The present case too seems so, since the lady has only two criminal cases against her.
• This is common in India, even politicians and other prominent persons have criminal cases registered against them. If the Gangsters Act is slapped against each one of them, then that would defeat the very purpose of the Act.
• A Gangster cannot be viewed as similar to a person protesting against a controversial law. The authorities justify their act by simply stating that such people were conspiring to commit anti-governmental activities, and they ignore the consequences of their actions and the impact that would create in the life of the person so booked.
• The Allahabad High Court was absolutely right in observing such conduct as “prejudice” and “malafide”.

Conclusion

The misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act by the State Police is on the rise. The Supreme Court and several other Courts, including the Allahabad High Court, had already condemned the approach of the Police in this regard. However, this has created little impact on their conduct, and they are still booking persons with comparatively petty offences under the said Act. It is also alleged that the authorities are forming fake stories and incidences to retain the custody. This is highly prejudicial, and directly affects the fundamental rights of a person. As rightly averred by the Allahabad High Court, the matter needs consideration. However, not only the instant case, but also the entire law needs a careful analysis.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement