Prayagraj: Observing that merely based on one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded a ‘goonda’ under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, the Allahabad high court has set aside a six-month externment order issued against a man.In a judgment dated April 20, the HC said such punitive action of the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of a person and his family.Allowing a writ petition by accused Satendra, Justice Sandeep Jain quashed the Feb 12, 2025, order of the Bulandshahr Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) imposing a six-month externment on the petitioner. The court also set aside the June 2, 2025, order of the Meerut division dommissioner that upheld the externment in appeal.The proceedings were initiated based on two criminal cases against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC and the SC-ST Act.The authorities had found that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his activities created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the locality, thereby dissuading people from coming forward to depose against him. It had further been taken into account that chargesheets had been submitted in the aforementioned cases and cognizance had already been taken by the competent court.Consequently, the petitioner was adjudicated a ‘goonda’ within the meaning of the Act of 1970 and has been externed for six months.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 shows his habitual tendency to commit crimes.Against this backdrop, 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 to two criminal cases against a person will not be sufficient to conclude that he is habitually involved in such crimes and he is a ‘goonda’.The court also relied on the 2022 judgment of the high court in Shahanshah v. state of UP and two others, wherein it was held that based on a single incident, an order of externment cannot be passed against a person.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 offenses punishable under various provisions of the IPC.
