CaseCiter Supreme Court Daily Digest [18 June 2025]

Lal Mohd. vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 811 - UP Gangsters Act

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2(b) - A group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activities enumerated in Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. (Para 14) 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. (Para 17) Mere involvement of the accused in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. (Para 19)

Constitution of India - Article 21 -UP Gangsters Act- Any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive. This principle, firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law - The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the State has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play- Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions. (Para 23-25)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 ] - Foundational principles that govern the quashing of complaints and criminal proceedings at the threshold - Referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (Para 8)

Geeta Mandal vs Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence

Motor Accident Compensation - Appeal challenging finding of contributory negligence of 50% of the deceased and 50% of the offending vehicle by the MACT - Allowing appeal, SC observed: Looking to the angle of movement made by both the vehicles, which is quite near to the middle of the road, it appears that the finding of contributory negligence of 50% of the deceased as recorded is unjustified- the contribution in accident may be maximum to the extent of 10% and that of the offending vehicle (truck) would be of 90%. (Para 5-6)