HC seeks Haryana’s strategy against organised criminal gangs
Flags ‘disturbing trend’ in Palwal, Faridabad and Gurugram; orders Home Dept affidavit
Expressing concern over a “disturbing trend” of organised criminal activity in parts of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State Government to place on record its policy framework and institutional measures to tackle the menace.
The directions were issued by Justice Sanjay Vashisth while deciding three petitions seeking the grant of regular bail in criminal cases. “This Court deems it appropriate to take note of the disturbing trend emerging in certain districts of the State of Haryana, particularly Palwal, Faridabad and Gurugram, where organised criminal gangs and their sleeper cells are alleged to be operating with increasing frequency. Such activities have serious ramifications for the maintenance of public order and the safety and security of citizens,” the Bench asserted.
Taking note of the issue, the Bench accordingly directed Haryana Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, to file an affidavit “apprising this Court of the policy framework and institutional measures put in place by the State to effectively deal with organised criminal gangs, their sleeper cells and other similarly placed criminal networks.”
Specifying the scope of the affidavit, Justice Vashisth asserted it should, among other things, indicate the “preventive, investigative and intelligence-based mechanisms adopted by the State, the inter-agency coordination in place, and the specific measures undertaken to maintain law and order and curb organised criminal activities in the districts of Palwal, Faridabad and Gurugram.”
Justice Vashisth directed the filing of the affidavit by August 24 and further ordered: “A copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh, for information and necessary compliance.”
State’s submissions
Opposing the bail petitions, the State argued that the matter involved much more than a simple recovery of illegal firearms. The prosecution submitted: “The present case is not an isolated incident involving mere recovery of illegal firearms, but forms part of the activities of an organised criminal syndicate operating in the States of Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.”
According to the State, the syndicate was operating under the leadership of accused presently residing abroad, who had “been orchestrating incidents of murder, attempted murder and extortion through its network of local associates.”
The State further submitted that “the border districts of western Haryana, particularly Palwal, Faridabad and parts of Gurugram adjoining the State of Uttar Pradesh, have witnessed a significant rise in such organised criminal activities during the past few years.”
The State counsel also told the Court that the petitioners “were functioning as sleeper cells of the said gang by facilitating the procurement, concealment and supply of illegal firearms and forged identity documents.”
Court’s reasoning
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, Justice Vashisth held that continued custody was not warranted after completion of the investigation. The court observed: “Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the investigation stands concluded and the final report has already been presented before the competent Court.”
It further noted: “The recoveries attributed to each of the petitioners have already been effected and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by their further incarceration.”
Granting relief, the Bench concluded: “Without commenting upon the merits of the prosecution case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of regular bail. Accordingly, present petitions are allowed.”
