Disposed

Anuj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018CRLP/36754/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash an FIR registered under the UP Gangsters Act due to alleged false prosecution. The court found the allegations made out a prima facie cognizable offence, refusing to quash the FIR, but directed expedited bail hearing within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR refused; direction for expeditious hearing of bail application filed within thirty days.

Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36754 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Anuj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar,Ajay Kumar Giri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the first information report dated 7.9.2018 registered in Case Crime No. 0099 of 2018, under Section 3 (1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Baresar, district Ghazipur.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the gang chart one case has been shown against the petitioner in which case the petitioner has already been released on bail. The petitioner has been prosecuted maliciously by the respondent no. 2. The allegations made in the impugned first information report regarding commission of offence by the petitioner is palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned first information report is thus liable to be quashed.

¶8

From the perusal of the first information report, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the first information report. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused.

¶9

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law.

¶10

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Shahnawaz

Anuj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadanand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohan Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushila Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sushil Gautam Alias Rahul and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others