Accused On Bail Shown As In Jail, Gang Chart Approved Without Joint Meeting: Allahabad High Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act FIR
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after noting that the mandatory joint meeting was not held and incorrect entries were made showing accused persons as being in jail despite the fact that they had been granted bail.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena thus allowed 4 connected writ petitions challenging the same FIR registered at a Police Station in Prayagraj, under Section 2/3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.
The Court found that the gang chart had been approved "without application of mind to the papers accompanying the proposal" which violated the requirements of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021.
Case in brief
The petitions primarily concerned a gang chart dated November 18, 2025, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on the next day.
The petitioners argued that the gang chart had not been approved after the mandatory joint meeting contemplated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021.
For context, Rule 5(3)(a) provides that a gang chart will not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the competent authorities.
In a commissionerate system, the High Court explained, the joint meeting in the present case had to take place between the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned.
High Court's observations and order
Examining the gang chart, the Court found that the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagar, Commissionerate Prayagraj had made independent endorsements on November 18, 2025.
The DCP recommended the proceedings, and the CP approved them; however, this was not done in a joint meeting. Taking exception to the same, the Court observed thus:
"Apparently, there was no discussion in a joint meeting between the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which makes the approval of the gang chart fall foul of the mandatory requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP Gangsters Rules".
The Bench further noted that even the endorsements of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Police did not indicate that the authorities had sat together in a joint meeting to take the decision.
The Court also found that the gang chart contained incorrect information regarding the custody status of several accused.
In the leading petition concerning Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji, the gang chart showed him as being in jail in connection with a 2024 Case. However, in that case, the High Court had already granted him bail in September 2025.
The Bench examined the bail order and found the entry in the gang chart to be incorrect and false. It remarked thus:
"We are, therefore, of opinion that the information in the gang chart about the petitioner being in jail in connection with the said crime is incorrect and false, vitiating the satisfaction of the authority who has approved the gang chart".
The Court further noted that Devendra Pratap Singh had been proceeded against under the Gangsters Act on the basis of a solitary base case, in which he was on bail. The Court observed that this, by itself, "may not, by itself, show him to be a member of a gang" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act.
The High Court also noted that the authorities had failed to examine the records accompanying the gang chart. The Bench observed thus:
"A man on bail, granted by this Court, has been regarded as one in jail, while approving the gang chart, betrays utter lack of application of mind".
In view of this, the Court found violations of Rules 5(3)(a), 8(2), and 16(1), (2) and (3) of the UP Gangsters Rules which, it said, rendered the detention bad. The Court also noted that the violation of Rule 5(3)(a) was present in all the connected matters.
The Bench relied upon its earlier decision in Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., where it had emphasized that competent authorities must ensure compliance with the Gangsters Rules while forwarding and approving a gang chart and that approval without examining whether the chart was prepared in accordance with the Rules amounts to non-application of an independent mind.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that a gang chart can be approved only after due discussion in the prescribed joint meeting and not through a summary process.
The Supreme Court had further held that the competent authorities must thoroughly examine all the facts afresh and record their satisfaction after scrutinizing the gang chart and accompanying material.
In this case, the Top Court had held that a "mechanical or routine exercise of power" by the recommending, forwarding and approving authorities was impermissible.
The High Court found similar errors in the connected petitions.
In one case, Atul Pratap Singh was shown as being in jail despite having been granted bail on October 13, 2025, in one crime and February 3, 2022, in another. The Court found that the authorities had approved the gang chart without looking into the records.
Likewise, Durgesh Kumar Singh was shown as being in jail despite having been granted bail on October 29, 2025.
The same problem was found in the cases of Ajay Yadav and Pushpendra Singh, both of whom were shown as being in jail despite bail orders in the relevant cases.
The Court also found that Ranvijay Singh alias Prince, whose name appeared in the common gang chart based on a single case, was shown as being in jail despite having been granted bail on October 29, 2025.
The Bench described this as a case of "gross non application of mind".
Against this backdrop, concluding that the gang chart had been approved “without application of mind to the papers accompanying the proposal”, the High Court held that the registration of the FIR was violative of Rule 5(3)(a) as well as Rules 8(3) and 16(1), (2) and (3) of the UP Gangsters Rules.
The Court accordingly allowed all the writ petitions and quashed the FIR dated November 19, 2025.
It also directed that an entry be made in "red ink" in the General Diary recording that the proceedings against the petitioners stood quashed pursuant to the High Court's order.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mr. Umar Zamin along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State
Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610