The Allahabad high court has observed that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded a “goonda” under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
With this observation, the high court set aside a six-month externment order dated February 12, 2025 issued by the additional district magistrate (finance and revenue), Bulandshahr, which was later upheld by the commissioner, Meerut division, in appeal on June 2,2025.
The high court added that such punitive action of the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such a person and his family.
In a judgment dated April 20, Justice Sandeep Jain allowed a writ petition filed by the accused Satendra.
The proceedings were initiated based on two criminal cases against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC and the SC-ST Act.
The authorities had found that the petitioner is a habitual offender, posing a menace to society, and that his activities have created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the locality, thereby dissuading members of the public from coming forward to depose against him.
It had further been taken into account that charge-sheets have been submitted in the aforesaid cases and cognizance has already been taken by the competent court.
Consequently, the petitioner was adjudged a ‘Goonda’ within the meaning of the Act of 1970 and externed for six months.
During the court proceedings, the petitioner contended before the high court that habituality cannot be inferred from isolated incidents.
On the other hand, the state counsel argued that the petitioner’s involvement in multiple criminal cases in close proximity in time unequivocally demonstrates his habitual propensity to engage in criminal activity.
Against this backdrop, the court referred to the high court’s 2010 judgment in Lalani Pandey alias Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. State of UP wherein it was held that one-two criminal cases against a person will not be sufficient to hold that he is habitually involved in commission of such offences and he is a ‘goonda’
The high court noted that, in the instant case also, the petitioner was branded a “goonda” on the basis of only two criminal cases registered against him, hence, the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1970 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
www.hindustantimes.com
#person #branded #goonda #basis #criminal #cases #Allahabad #high #court
