LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Muzaffarnagar district administration over the arbitrary and repeated use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against an individual already facing multiple cases.
While reprimanding the Muzaffarnagar authorities over the issue, the court described it the “sheer misuse of law.”
The bench, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing the bail application of accused Manshad alias Sona, questioned the conduct of the police and the Muzaffarnagar district administration for re-invoking the Gangsters Act using previously known cases.
“This shows not only arbitrariness on the part of the SHO, but also sheer negligence on the part of the SSP and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, who are required to apply their minds at the time of conducting the joint meeting,” the Court observed.
The accused had already been booked under the Gangsters Act in earlier cases in 2025, yet the same Act was again invoked against him on the basis of cases from 2023, 2024, and early 2025. The Court noted that these old cases were available earlier too and questioned the intent behind the repetitive invocation of the Act.
The man identified as Manshad alias Sona has been in jail since May, this year, under this law after four separate FIRs were consolidated against him at Khalapar police station.
The court directed the Muzaffarnagar DM, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), and the Station House Officer (SHO) of Khalapar police station to appear in person on the next date of hearing to explain their alleged misconduct and negligence on July 7.
“The SHO, SSP, and District Magistrate must appear before this Court and explain their actions which show sheer misuse of statutory provisions,” the bench added.
Moreover, the Court also instructed the court Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Secretary, Home Department, for their information.
However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the State, was unable to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why the Gangsters Act was being repeatedly used on the same old cases.
While hearing his bail application, the court noted that three FIRs lodged in 2023 and one in 2025 had each been re-registered under the Gangsters Act, and an earlier invocation in 2024 compounded the ordeal.
After carefully examining the facts and observing the violation of legal norms, the Court granted interim bail to the accused and directed him to comply with specific conditions, including cooperation in the trial and non-indulgence in any further criminal activity.
Quoting multiple legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases of Vinod Bihari Lal and Lal Mohd, the Court emphasized that the repetitive and mechanical use of the Gangsters Act not only violates legal provisions but also disrespects recent State Government guidelines formulated following the Supreme Court’s direction in the Gorakh Nath Mishra case.