Shital Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

O.P. Garg and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.—Heard Sri Satyendra Narain Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') have been invoked in the present case on account of involvement of the Petitioner in four criminal cases, namely, Case Crime No. 197 of 1992 under Sections 380/411, I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, district Varanasi, Case Crime No. 259 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 450, I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, district Varanasi, Case Crime No. 261 of 2000 u/s 25 Arms Act P.S. Chaubeypur, district Varanasi and Case Crime No. 16 of 2000 under Sections 307/504/506, I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, district Varanasi. In all the aforesaid cases, the Petitioner has been released on bail. Merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, it has been decided by the concerned authorities that the Petitioner is terrorising the society, which fact is apparent from the bare perusal of the impugned notice.

Admittedly, the impugned notice u/s 3 (1) of the Act has been served upon the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further pointed out that the notice, in question, is bad in law on account of the fact that the material details and the substance of the offences have not been specified in the notice. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Full Bench decisions of this Court in Ramji v. State of U.P. 1982 U.P.CR 1; Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Ors. XXXIX (1999) ACC 321 (FB), and a Division Bench decision in Nafis and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. XL (2000) ACC 90.

We have perused the notice in question and feel that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is well-merited. The notice has specified the aforesaid three criminal cases against the Petitioner. Admittedly, in all the three cases, the Petitioner has been released on bail and the trial is going on. A person is released on bail only when the Court finds that prima facie, no case is made out, and, by virtue of bail orders passed in favour of the Petitioner, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. Since the law on the point is well-settled, instead of dragging this petition unnecessarily, we are inclined to dispose of this petition finally at this stage.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 26.2.2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition issued u/s 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, is hereby quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed to mean that the authority concerned shall be prevented from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law within the parameters laid down in the judicial pronouncements, referred to above.