- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
- /
- P&H High Court Issues Directions To...
P&H High Court Issues Directions To Curb 'Gang Culture'; Says FIRs Should Not Be Made Public To Protect Complainants
Aiman J. Chishti
27 May 2025 6:00 PM IST
Observing that "it is baffling to see that in spite of the widespread nature of this malady, no legislative framework to combat the same," the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued slew of directions to Governments of both the states to deal with gangster related activities and organised crime.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar in his order said, "Uploading a copy of the FIR on the police portal...
Observing that "it is baffling to see that in spite of the widespread nature of this malady, no legislative framework to combat the same," the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued slew of directions to Governments of both the states to deal with gangster related activities and organised crime.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar in his order said, "Uploading a copy of the FIR on the police portal would intimate the accused that the victim has sought help of the law enforcement agencies as well as disclose the details of the complainant, which can have disastrous consequences for them. Therefore, it must be ensured that the FIR pertaining to incidents pertaining to organised crimes, being sensitive in nature, are not available in public domain."
The Court also gave examples of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan who have already enacted the law on the issue.
The Directions issued the Court to investigating authorities includes the following:
i. Registration of an FIR promptly on receipt of information regarding gang-related activities is mandatory. However, the same must not be uploaded on the concerned police portal.
ii. The investigation in such cases must be conducted by officer of the rank of DSP.
iii. Set up a toll-free helpline number, email ID and online portal of reporting of gang-related crimes. Steps must be taken to sensitise the public towards the same.
iv. District-wise units of AGTF and STF in the States of Punjab and Haryana, respectively, must be established. The said district-level units are to be headed by a Nodal Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police, as the case may be. A State-level headquarter under the aegis of an officer of the level of ADGP must also be established.
v. The ADGP shall also conduct periodic meetings with the district- heads to collate information and monitor their functioning.
vi. The ADPGs must also meet their counterparts in neighbouring states as well as the central agencies every three months and share intelligence acquired.
vii. Forensic examination of any devices found on the accused shall be mandatory. The scope of the examination shall include but will not be limited to call detail records, financial transactions, location tracing.
viii. It shall be mandatory to enquire into the proceeds of crime, acquired by indulging in illegal gang-related activities. The same may be attached under Section 107 of the BNSS.
ix. If required, orders may be obtained under Section 303 BNSS to prohibit transfer or removal of prisoners from their lodgment place for one year or till completion of the trial.
x. The Punjab Witness Protection Scheme, 2024 must be amended to ensure it is in consonance with the guidelines in Mahender Chawla.
xi. The local police officers of District level AGTF/STF units must be trained and sensitized appropriately to deal with cases pertaining to organised criminal syndicates.
xii. A Standard Operating Procedure to be adopted while dealing with organised crime must be formulated and circulated to the State police force, within a period of two months.
Following are the directions given to the Judicial Officers:
i. Scrutinize the final report submitted under Section 193 BNSS to ensure that the investigating officers are not acting under duress.
ii. Apprise the District and Sessions Judge of incidents of intimidation that could affect the safety of a witness.
iii. The District and Sessions Judge shall be duty bound to assess the degree of threat and proceed in accordance with the relevant Witness Protection Scheme.
The Court was hearing a protection plea wherein the petitioner allegedly was receiving threat from a Gangster affiliated with Lawrence Bishnoi Gang.
In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner and his family had been living under constant concern for their life owing to the constant threats made by Rohit Godara, a known gangster.
The Court had then observed directed the Governments of Punjab and Haryana to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to curb gangster culture.
Organised crime thrives on a culture of fear
Adding that, "Organised crime thrives on a culture of fear," the Court said, "Gangs instill a pervasive sense of threat to personal safety as well as property, which coerces individuals into compliance. This fear-driven submission further entrenches their control and creates a sense of helplessness in the citizenry."
"Breaking this vicious cycle demands a commitment to creation of a secure environment, where the public feels empowered to report crimes without fear of retaliation. A community that feels protected by its law enforcement agencies and trusts its institutions can be the most effective tool to counter to the influence of organised crime," added the judge.
Justice Brar quoted, Wolfgang Friedman and said, "State of criminal law continues to be- as it should be – a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society."
In the present case, the Court noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs has assessed the nature of threat to the petitioner and the report has been duly communicated to the State of Haryana.
Hence, it directed the concerned department to take swift action towards providing protection to the petitioner and his family, in accordance with the central government's report.
Mr. Gourav Verma, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Sangeeta Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No.6-Union of India.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional A.G., Punjab.
Title: RAN VEER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS