The Allahabad High Court has set aside a six-month externment order issued against a man, observing that a person cannot be branded as a 'goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, merely based on one or two criminal cases.
Court's Observation
In a judgment dated April 20, Justice Sandeep Jain stated that such punitive action by the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of a person and his family. The court allowed a writ petition filed by accused Satendra, quashing the February 12, 2025 order of the Bulandshahr Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) that imposed a six-month externment on the petitioner. The court also set aside the June 2, 2025 order of the Meerut division commissioner, which had upheld the externment in appeal.
Background of the Case
The proceedings against Satendra were initiated based on two criminal cases registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The authorities had concluded that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that his activities created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the locality, dissuading people from coming forward to depose against him. It was also taken into account that chargesheets had been submitted in the cases and that cognizance had been taken by the competent court. Consequently, the petitioner was adjudged a 'goonda' within the meaning of the 1970 Act and was externed for six months.
Petitioner's Argument
During the proceedings, the petitioner contended before the high court that habituality cannot be inferred from isolated incidents. The state counsel, however, argued that the petitioner's involvement in multiple criminal cases over a short span clearly showed his habitual tendency to commit crimes.
Court's Reliance on Precedents
The court referred to the high court's 2010 judgment in Lalani Pandey alias Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. State of UP, wherein it was held that one or two criminal cases against a person are not sufficient to conclude that he is habitually involved in such offences and that he is a 'goonda'. The court also relied on the 2022 judgment in Shahanshah vs. State of UP and two others, which held that an externment order cannot be passed based on a single incident.
Examination of the Act
The court examined Section 2(b) of the 1970 Act, which defines 'goonda' as a person who habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the IPC. The court concluded that the externment order was not justified based on the available evidence.
