Preventive externment based on the definition of a 'habitual offender' requires proof of persistent, repetitive, and similar criminal behavior. The mere pendency of one or two criminal cases does not suffice to meet the legal threshold of being an habitual offender under preventive detention laws.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 720 of 2025 (Satendra vs. State of U.P.), as well as the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Bulandshahr in Case No. 1650 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Satendra), whereby proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 culminated in an externment order against the petitioner for a period of six months.

2. Factual matrix is that the record reveals that two criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. The first case, being Case Crime No. 3 of 2022, was registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC along with Sections 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act. The second case, being Case Crime No. 445 of 2023, was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC alongwith other allied provisions of the SC/ST Act.

3. On account of the aforesaid criminal cases, proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 were initiated against the petitioner. After providing due opportunity of hearing and upon consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner, wherein it was contended that the aforesaid cases were falsely lodged due to personal enmity and are still pending without any conviction, the externment order came to be passed.

4. The authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner is a habitual offender, posing a menace to society, and that his activities have created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the locality, thereby dissuading members of the public from coming forward to depose against him. It has further been taken into account that charge-sheets have been submitted in the aforesaid cases and cognizance has already been taken by the competent court. Consequently, the petitioner has been adjudged to be a "Goonda" within the meaning of the Act of 1970 and has been externed under Section 3(3) thereof for a period of six months, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority, which are under challenge in the present writ petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and no conviction has been recorded therein. It was argued that mere pendency of two cases cannot justify branding the petitioner as a "Goonda" within the meaning of the Act of 1970. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 434 as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14, to contend that habituality cannot be inferred from isolated incidents.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of the definition of "Goonda" as envisaged under Section 2 of the Act of 1970. It has been urged that it is not sine qua non that the person must have been convicted of the offences in question; rather, the pendency of criminal cases, coupled with the material available on record, is sufficient to warrant initiation of proceedings under the Act.

7. It has further been contended that the petitioner's involvement in multiple criminal cases within close proximity of time unequivocally demonstrates his habitual propensity to indulge in criminal activities. Learned A.G.A. submits that the authorities below have, upon due consideration o