SC slams UP Police for slapping Gangsters Act against SHUATS Director
Slamming the Uttar Pradesh Police for invoking the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against 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.
“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 said quashing the case against Lal lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
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 authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse,” 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.
“We would like to remind that the role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine,” it said.
Clarifying that the observations made in the judgment were relevant only for the purpose of the FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings, the Bench said, “None of the observations shall have any bearing on any of the pending criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings.”
