In a significant ruling delivered on March 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of India set aside the orders of the Allahabad High Court and quashed FIR No. 0125 of 2022 registered against Gabbar Singh alias Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rajesh Singh under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The two-judge bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sanjay Kumar held that the entire proceedings rested on a defective Gang Chart that failed to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
The case originated from an FIR filed on May 28, 2022, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bahraich. The police relied solely on a Gang Chart to label the appellant and two others as members of a gang involved in land grabbing, extortion, cheating, forgery and other offences. The appellant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, but relief was denied. Even a review petition was rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the challenge was narrowed to the procedural irregularities in preparing and forwarding the Gang Chart.
The Court meticulously examined the statutory scheme. Under Rule 5 of the 2021 Rules, the process begins with the Station House Officer (Nodal Officer) preparing the Gang Chart with clear recommendations, followed by the Additional Superintendent of Policeās express recommendation. The chart must then be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, who are required to hold a joint meeting, discuss the matter and approve it by affixing signatures. The Supreme Court noted that the certified copy of the Gang Chart produced before the Court from the trial court record bore no signatures at all. Even the original chart shown by the State revealed that the joint meeting requirement under Section 5(3) had not been followed.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, emphasised a fundamental legal principle: āWhen a particular thing is to be done, it should be done in the manner stipulatedā¦ or not at all.ā The bench observed that the liberty of an individual cannot be compromised on the basis of a document that does not meet the statutory safeguards, especially under a stringent law that allows mere naming of a person as a āgangsterā with serious consequences. The Court drew support from its earlier decision in Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), where similar procedural deviations were frowned upon.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal cases listed in the Gang Chart. Those proceedings can continue to their logical conclusion. The authorities have also been left free to initiate fresh proceedings under the Act by strictly following the prescribed procedure.
This judgment reinforces the judiciaryās role as a sentinel of personal liberty and sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies: preventive detention laws and gangster statutes cannot be invoked casually. Strict adherence to the Rules is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative. For citizens facing such cases, the ruling underscores that procedural safeguards are as important as substantive allegations.
Gabbar Singh alias Devendra Pratap Singh Alias Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 271
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 