UP Goondas Act | Two Criminal Cases Not Enough To Brand A Person 'Goonda', It Damages Reputation: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a 'Goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain added that such punitive action of the State causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such a person and his family.

The single judge was essentially dealing with a writ petition challenging a 6-month externment order. The Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, had upheld the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Bulandshahr, in his appeal.

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 has been externed for a period of six months.

Petitioner contended before the HC that habituality cannot be inferred from isolated incidents. The AGA, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment,

The AGA 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 bench referred to the HC's 2010 Judgment in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. State of UP wherein it was held that 1-2 criminal cases against a person will not be sufficient to hold him, that he is habitually involved in commission of such offences and he is a 'goonda'

The Court also relied on the 2022 Judgment of the HC in Shahanshah v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 201 wherein it was held that only on the basis of a single incident, an order of externment can't be passed against a person.

The Bench examined Section 2(b) of the 1970 Act, which defines 'Goonda' as a person who habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench added that for invoking the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if offences are committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality may not be established.

Consequently, it noted that, in the instant case also, the petitioner has been branded as "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.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed.

Case title - Satendra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 236

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 236

Click Here To Read/Download Order