Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68252 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21556 of 2024 Applicant :- Mumtaz And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet dated 18.11.2023 and cognizance order dated 02.12.2023 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.3304 of 2024 (State Vs. Mumtaz and others), arising out of Case Crime No.02 of 2022, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.12, Ghaziabad. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that on dated 02.01.2022, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.02 of 2022 was lodged by informant against 11 persons including applicant under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, "Act 1986"). Thereafter inquiry was initiated and after conduction of the same, concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on 18.11.2023 whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 02.12.2023 which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of solitary case bearing Case Crime No.2288 of 2021, under Section 3/4 of Gambling Act and Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that there is no any independent witness in the present case and all the witnesses are police personals. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicants have not done anything contrary to Sections 2, 3(1) of the Act 1986 as well as the mandatory provisions of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short ''Rules 2021"), in particular, Rules, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 as well as have not been followed in its true spirit, and as such, applicants would not be covered within the definition of ''gang' as defined under Section 2(b) of Gangster Act. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of submitting that the applicants being gang leader and members, are involved in disturbing public order by causing violence and threat for the purposes of obtaining unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary and as such, no relief can be granted to them. 6. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of the records, it would be appropriate to quote Section 2(b) of the Act 1986 which defines the gang which is hereinbelow:- "'Gang' means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti- social activities." 7. The expression ''public order' is of wide connotation and signifies the state of tranquillity prevailing among the members of political society as a result of the internal regulation of the Government. (Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124). Thus, public order means even tempo of the life of the community taking within its fold even a specified locality and a substantial section of the society. (Nagen Murmu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 844). In other words, the word public order is virtually synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity. The incidents of breach of public order would include the legislation to regulate the use of sound amplifiers in public places, forcing entry into, schools, setting fire to school building, public property, public gambling, manufacture and distribution of spurious and adulterated liquor, drugs, attempting to throw a bomb at the Police etc. are all connected with public order. (Bablu Mitra vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 197). 8. All the anti-social activities mentioned in the definition of gang are not covered as offences but are certainly unlawful activities having serious reflection on the society, though not termed as offences. Thus, the law never required that offences must have been committed in past or involve use of violence for prosecution under the Gangster Act. Further, as per definition of gang, the Gangster Act seeks to prevent and punish activities which may result in undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage to the gangsters or any other person and which may or may not necessarily, involve the use of violence. (Verneet Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2009 (1) ALL CrJ 377). 9. In the case in hand, the base case which has been shown against applicants, is related to Gambling Act and as, it cannot be said that they have not disturbed the public order. By bare perusal of the gang-chart which also shows due diligence and independent application of mind by both the recommending and approving Authorities and as such, it cannot be said that there is violation of Rule 5 and 17 of Rules, 2021. In sofar as the argument of learned counsel for applicants that on the bases of solitary case, they have not been implicated in the present case, is concerned, the said argument is not sustainable since Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514. already held that gangster can be invoked against an accused on the base of solitary case. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad