Allahabad High Court seeks UP response to Supreme Court's 'stillborn' Act observation

Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment that observed the Act lacks a specific penal provision for the defined offenses.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: Bhimsen Singh Alias Raju; Respondent: State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another; Bench: Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J. (Allahabad High Court).

What the court decided

• The Court heard arguments from counsel for the applicants and the Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State.
• The applicants submitted that the Supreme Court in 'Shiv Pratap Singh @ Chinu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.' (2026 SCC Online SC 1677) applied the principle of 'nulla poena sine lege' and noted that Section 2 of the Act defines 'Gang' and 'Gangster' while Section 3 prescribes penalties, but the Act does not specifically penalize the actions described as offenses.
• The applicants contended that prosecuting individuals under the Gangsters Act for criminal activities already covered by separate charge sheets violates Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
• The document records the applicants' submissions and excerpts from the Supreme Court judgment but does not state any final order, relief granted, or next date by the Allahabad High Court in this specific text.

Also in the document

• The text is an excerpt from an Allahabad High Court order (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6109 of 2026) discussing a Supreme Court judgment.
• The Supreme Court judgment cited in the text emphasizes that the U.P. Act and Rules proceed on the basis that an offense is specifically provided for in the Act, which the Court noted was absent.
• The text includes detailed excerpts of Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act and Rules 3 and 4 as referenced in the Supreme Court judgment.