Noida: A sessions court has acquitted a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act in 2005 for offences allegedly committed between 2001 and 2004, citing significant gaps in the investigation and ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, including that the accused was part of a gang, had spread fear and terror in society, or had acquired property through intimidation or criminal acts.The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Sector 24 police station in Noida, which named Suraj, Sanjay and Ranjit as members of a gang allegedly involved in stealing cash, mobile phones and other valuables from passengers travelling on buses. Police alleged the gang’s activities created fear and insecurity among commuters and disrupted public order.According to court records, the then SHO Veer Vikram Singh sought the approval of the district magistrate on Sept 26, 2004, for preparing a gang chart based on an earlier theft case registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The gang chart identified Suraj as the alleged leader and formed the basis for proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of UP Gangsters Act.The court took cognisance of the charge sheet and registered the matter as a special case in 2005. Charges were framed against the three accused on Sept 11, 2006.During the proceedings, Suraj pleaded guilty and was convicted. Sanjay, however, remained absconding, prompting the court to separate his case on March 25, 2025. The trial continued against Ranjit, who denied the allegations and sought a full trial.After hearing submissions from the prosecution, special judge Saurabh Dwivedi observed that the existence of cases listed in a gang chart, by itself, was insufficient to secure a conviction under the Gangsters Act.The court said the prosecution was also required to establish that the alleged offences were committed individually or collectively through violence, threat, intimidation or coercion with the intention of disturbing public order or obtaining undue economic or material gain. It found that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence demonstrating that Ranjit was part of an organised gang, that the alleged activities had spread fear or terror in society, or that he had acquired any property or financial benefit through criminal intimidation.The court acquitted Ranjit, giving him the benefit of the doubt. It directed him to pay a personal bond of Rs 30,000 and a surety of an equal amount in compliance with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
