Back
J. J. MUNIR
Vinod Bihari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.)
1. This Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short, 'the Code'] has been preferred by Vinod Bihari Lal, Director (Administration), Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj, seeking to quash the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.54 of 2019, State vs. Vinod B. Lal and others (arising out of Crime No.0850 of 2018), under Section 2/3 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, [for short, 'the Act of 1986'], Police Station Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad.
2. The First Information Report, [for short, 'the FIR'] giving rise to the crime, which after investigation, has culminated in the charge-sheet impugned, was lodged on 28.07.2018 at P.S. Naini, then District Allahabad, now Prayagraj by Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Station House Officer, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj. On the basis of the impugned charge-sheet, Special Sessions Trial No.54 of 2019 was registered on t
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "overruled by," or similar language that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, no cases are categorized as bad law based on the information provided.
[followed or authoritative treatment]
Gujarat Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1673: This entry references two cases, Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but does not specify how they have been treated in subsequent jurisprudence. The mention appears to be informational or foundational rather than indicating any negative or positive treatment. Without explicit treatment language, we cannot categorize this as followed or overruled.
[clarification or interpretative rulings]
Sunil Fulchand Shah VS Union Of India - 2000 4 Supreme 682: This case provides detailed legal points about detention, parole, and related procedural rules. The language suggests it is an interpretative or clarificatory decision, setting out legal principles rather than indicating subsequent treatment or overruling.
[constitutional or validity ruling]
Animal Welfare Board of India VS A. Nagaraja - 2014 4 Supreme 451: This case declares the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, as "repugnant to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and hence unconstitutional and void." This is a substantive decision on constitutionality, but again, there is no indication it has been overruled or questioned in the provided data.
[interpretation of legal terms]
United Bank of India VS Pijush Kanti Nandy - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1387: This case discusses the interpretation of words ‘otherwise’ and ‘means’ in legal definitions and regulations. It appears to be an interpretative ruling without subsequent negative treatment indicated.
All cases lack explicit indicators of treatment such as being overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned. The absence of such language means that their subsequent treatment in the judiciary is not clearly provided or is ambiguous based on the given data. Therefore, these cases are categorized as uncertain regarding their judicial treatment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
