- (1.) THIS bail application was heard on 9.11.2011 and again on 21.11.2011, and the court having found the Gang Chart in question to be prima facie deficient on account of incomplete information about the accused, called upon the signatories of the gang chart to explain as to why information relating to earlier antecedents of the applicant including another case under the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 had not been indicated which stands reflected from a perusal of the bail rejection order as also from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant on 1st November, 2011.
(2.) SRI A.K. Sand, Additional Government Advocate filed an affidavit on behalf of the then Station House Officer Mr. Mohd. Hasim giving his explanation about the reasons for not mentioning the criminal antecedents of the applicant in the gang chart. SRI Sand submits that in case there is any such deficiency as understood by this court, the same shall be taken care of in future. SRI Surendra Bahadur Singh learned AGA has placed the case diary and also other relevant material to indicate that the Investigating Officer has maintained the police diary by appropriately mentioning the antecedents of the accused and was shown to the court below. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari made a statement on 24.11.2011 that he does not want to press this bail application and the same be dismissed. The Court wanted to know the reasons as to how such gang charts are prepared and under which provisions and, the sudden 'U' turn taken by the applicant to get his application not pressed impelled this court to express its opinion in order to ensure that any lapse on the part of the investigation or the prosecution may not result in any miscarriage or failure of justice, particularly in the present existing criminal justice system. The observations made hereinafter are, therefore, necessary which should be taken care of by the prosecution itself and not wait for the court to make enquiries or a desperate search with regard to antecedents which in the opinion of the court is necessary for consideration at least at the stage of bail. The State Legislature brought into force the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with a view to curb the menace of organised crime. The Act is exhaustive and defines gangsterism and gangsters therein. The State Government has also secured powers therein for itself to frame rules. Learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that no rules have been framed so far.
(3.) WHAT transpired during the hearing of Writ Petition No. 6249 of 2003 was that in order to ensure that no cases of false implication recur either by any malpractice or motivated prosecution, the high court expressed its prima facie opinion with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Home and the Director General of Police to take up appropriate measures for the preparation of gang charts and streamlining of investigation so that no accused is unnecessarily harassed. These orders dated 14.10.2003 and 12th November, 2003 in the case of Amar Nath Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others was noticed by the State Government and the Director General of Police on 24th October, 2003 wrote the following letter quoted hereinbelow:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... This was followed by another letter of the Director General of Police on 20.11.2003 quoted hereinunder:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Noticing the aforesaid two letters and the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench the Principal Secretary Home issued instructions on 2nd January, 2004 clearly entailing therein the manner in which gang chart in relation to offences under the Gangsters Act was to be prepared and Clause-2 of the said instructions would indicate the details of information that has to be contained therein. The said instructions issued by the Principal Secretary Home which is in the shape of a Government Order is extracted hereinunder:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;