SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
,
KAMAL UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
CRLP/11796/2022



Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11796 of

2022

Petitioner :- Kamal Upadhyay And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

A.G.A.

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR

dated 09.07.2022 registered as Case Crime No.299 of 2022,

under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Shamli, District- Shamli

and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the

petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that

only on the basis of solitary case, the proceeding under Section

2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act has been drawn, which is liable to be

set aside.

As has been propounded by Division Bench in Criminal Misc.

Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2019 (Somvir Vs. State of U.P. and

2 others) as well as in many judgments by this Court that even

a single case, if fulfills the category of offences given under

Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang

defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2

(c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime

number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Uttar

Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,

1986. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that based on

solitary case, the imposition of Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act

is not leviable, would have no bearing.

In view of the aforesaid dictum, even on the basis of solitary

case, the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social

Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 can be imposed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case has been

made out for interference with the impugned first information

report.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the

petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory

bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 1.9.2022

Shivangi

Digitally signed by SHIVANGI

YADAV

Date: 2022.09.05 10:54:25 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top