TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Apex court slams UP Police for slapping Gangsters Act against director of agriculture university

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Slamming the Uttar Pradesh Police for invoking the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against the Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Vinod Bihari Lal, the Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against him after it found that the FIR and chargesheet lacked independent application of mind.

Advertisement

“We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law,” a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra on Friday said, quashing the case against Lal lodged at the Naini police station in Allahabad district in Uttar Pradesh.

Advertisement

The Bench allowed Lal’s petition, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s April 2023 order, rejecting his plea for quashing of the FIR and refusing to grant bail. “We are at pains to observe that the authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference. This is truly a case of the fox guarding the hen house,” it said.

The Bench noted that the contents of the chargesheet reflected a “casual and cavalier attitude” on the part of the investigating agency, as it disclosed nothing beyond what was stated in the FIR.

The Bench said it remained obscure how the investigating authorities could assert that the alleged offences under Section 2 and 3 of the Act stands “proved” against the appellant. “We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be ‘proved’,” the Bench said.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement