The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday refused to give any relief to Tara Singh Bisht, a declared goonda due to his long criminal history.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing Bisht’s petition. The petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging orders dated October 15, 2020 passed by the Police Commissioner, Lucknow and order dated October 21, 2020 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
The petitioner has long criminal history of 24 cases from 2003 till March 9, 2021.
In 18 cases, charge-sheets have been filed, however, in three cases in the absence of sufficient evidence, final reports have been filed. In one case i.e. Case registered under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, he was extended from the district for a period of six months. In two cases, the investigation is still on.
The petitioner is a land shark and is accused of taking over the lands of other persons, particularly belonging to the weaker section of society as well as the government lands by committing forgery and fraud and taking forcible possession thereon.
It is also alleged that in as many as 11 cases, the petitioner has been acquitted.
On August 13, 2021 was registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar with allegations that the petitioner is a dreaded
criminal. Several cases were pending against him. Out of his fear and terror, witnesses do not come forward to depose against him.
He has captured and occupied the lands of the villagers and weaker sections of the society as well as the government land and, therefore, action should be taken against him under the provisions of the Act.
On the basis of the report of Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow dated August 25, 2020, a case was registered under the provisions of the Act on 3rd October, 2020 before the Police Commissioner, Lucknow Commissionerate and the Petitioner was served a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act.
In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Act on 3rd October, 2020, the petitioner has filed his reply stating therein that he is spokesperson of Bharatiya Kisan Union, Avadh. Since he raises the issue of welfare of the farmers, people have turned against him.
After considering the reply and the report of the police, the Police Commissioner vide order dated October 15, 2020 has passed order for his experiment for a period of six months from the boundaries of Lucknow Commissionerate from the date of the order.
An appeal filed by him before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated October 15, 2020 under Section 6 of the Act has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner and order passed by the Commissioner Lucknow, Commissionererate has been affirmed.
H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate has submitted that notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Act was vitiated as it did not contain general nature of material allegations in respect of matters on the basis of which authorities sought to take action under the provisions of the Act against him.
He has further submitted that in most of the cases the petitioner has been acquitted and, therefore, the beat information dated August 13, 2020 was incorrect. He has also submitted that most of the cases registered against him are result of personal and political rivalries.
He is not a criminal as alleged and he has not threatened any witness.
Rao Narendra Singh, A.G.A. has submitted that accused is a history-sheeter of Gomti Nagar Police Station. Several cases are registered against him. In eleven cases, he could secure acquittal on the basis of witnesses turning hostile and not supporting the prosecution case.
It has been further stated that he takes forcible possession of the land of the poor and weaker section of the society by forging the documents and terrorized them and, therefore, many people do not dare to go Police station to depose against him. After registration of complaints against him, witnesses turn hostile out of his fear and terror and he secures acquittal from the Court.
It is further submitted that the case of the accused is fully covered under the provisions of the Act and orders passed by the Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner are correct and valid and are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
He has further submitted that in the year 2007 also an order of experiment was passed against the Petitioner for six months.
A person who is a habitual offender for committing offences as defined under Chapters XV, XVI, XVII, XXII of the IPC is a goonda and also he is a goonda, if he has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 or has been convicted not less than thrice for offence punishable under UP Excise Act, Public Gambling Act and Arms Act or who is a person having reputation as dangerous to the community or has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls or he is a tout, the Court held.
“If the material placed before the competent authority ie District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is such on the basis of which, the authority can draw inference that a person against whom provisions of the Act are invoked, is a goonda and his movements or acts are causing or dangerous to a person or property or there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is engaged or about to engage in the District or any part thereof in commission of the offence as referred to in the definition of Goonda as defined under Section 2(b ) of the Act or the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him apprehending their safety and security or of their property, then after giving notice by the District Magistrate Commissioner of Police and reasonable opportunity for his appearance in response to such notice, the authority would be entitled to pass such an order”, the Court observed.
The Court stated that, the Act has been enacted for the purposes of control and suppression of goondas. If a person’s activities are disturbing public peace and public order and the material against such a person justifies terming him as a goonda, District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, would be justified to pass an order under Section 3 of the Act for his externment from the concerned District.
“From the long criminal history of the Petitioner, it is evident that he has repeatedly and persistently committed the similar offences. Witnesses are not coming to depose against him out of his fear and terror. The two authorities have passed the orders on the basis of material which is sufficient to term the Petitioner as Goonda,” the Court said.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the Petition being devoid of merit.