Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 16, 2025 To June 22, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsMere Involvement In Communal Clash Not Enough To Attract UP Gangsters Act Without Proof of Habitual Criminality : Supreme CourtCase Details: Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 685The Supreme Court held that stringent state laws such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) cannot be applied to individuals solely for their involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity, in the absence of evidence indicating prior or ongoing coordinated criminal conduct.“The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.”, the court said.The Court further observed that, unless there is evidence establishing that the accused was part of an organized gang engaged in continuous criminal activity, mere involvement in communal violence, regardless of its gravity, would not justify the invocation of the Gangsters Act.The Court cautioned against the routine invocation of stringent extraordinary legislation like the UP Gangsters Act, stating that such laws must be invoked judiciously based on relevant considerations without acting as a tool for harassment.Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Dunki Agent In Cheating Case Filed By Man Deported From USCase Details: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) No. 008965 - / 2025The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of being a dunki facilitator and duping the complainant of an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs on the promise of sending him to the United States of America.The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail by a person accused of offences under Sections 120-B, 370, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC (Sections 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).The petitioner, Om Prakash, approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied him anticipatory bail in the FIR registered by the Haryana police.Considering the gravity of the offences involved, the present bench refused to interfere in the impugned order. While dismissing the plea, it observed, "very serious allegations" were against the petitioner.Supreme Court Allows Samajwadi Party To Approach Allahabad HC Against Eviction of Pilibhit District OfficeCase Details: Samajwadi Party v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Diary No. 7440 / 2025The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition preferred by the Samajwadi Party against the Allahabad High Court's order restraining the District Party President, District Pilibhit, from filing further writ petitions in regards to the dispute over eviction of the Party from its district office in Pilibhit.The Court, however, clarified that SP can approach the High Court.As per the SLP, the District Party President, Anand Singh Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court alleging eviction by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit, from the Party's district office. However, the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and refrained Yadav from filing writ petitions before the high court on the same cause of action.Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Amtek Group Promoter's Plea For Interim Bail In Money Laundering CaseCase Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 8997/2025 The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea of Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham, seeking interim relief in a money laundering case against him.A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice PB Varale questioned how the second plea was filed during vacation when a three-judge bench of the Court had refused to entertain the plea at the first instance.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner. Ultimately, Rohatgi decided to withdraw the SLP.Person Working In Society Which Is 'State' As Per Article 12 Not Government Servant: Supreme CourtCase Details: Pintu Chowdhury v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 016733 / 2025The Supreme Court observed that a person who works in a registered society which is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 cannot be held to be a government servant.The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Tripura High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from a government post as 'junior weaver'.The petitioner, to be eligible, had misrepresented that he was earlier a government employee. The petitioner, before applying as a junior weaver, was working as a crafts teacher at Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWRES), an autonomous body supported by the Government.The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that TTWRES was not a government department but a society and the petitioner could not be considered as a government...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 16, 2025 To June 22, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags