Dismissed

Guddu Paswan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Apr 2019CRLP/11493/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986. The court held that the presence of only two cases does not preclude gang status and refusal to name all members in every instance does not warrant quashing.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.

Guddu Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11493 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Guddu Paswan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 16.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0157 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is that the petitioner along with three others constitute a gang which indulges in manufacturing and marketing of illicit countrymade liquor. It has also been alleged that the above activity is being done with a view to make pecuniary/temporal gains. It has also been alleged that witnesses are not willing to depose against the accused. In support of the allegations, several cases have been cited in the first information report and in each of those cases charge sheet has been submitted.

¶8

As against the petitioner there are two cases.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are only two cases against the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be termed member of a gang indulging in organized crime.

¶10

It is not the requirement of law that all anti-social acts should be committed collectively by gang members therefore, even if some of the gang members are not named accused in some of the activities of the gang, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed on the ground urged.

¶11

Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶12

The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.4.2019/Md Faisal

Guddu Paswan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Paswan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajaram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Brijesh Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brahmanand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Chandra @ Mahesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others