Dismissed

Raisul Hasan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020CRLP/1067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The bench declined to interfere, noting the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and alleged gang activities, leaving the matter for investigation. The right to apply for bail was preserved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed. The right to apply for bail/anticipatory bail was preserved.

Raisul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1067 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Raisul Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M J Akhtar,Viquar Mehdi Zaidi (Senior Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred this petition for the quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 1669 of 2019 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Noida Sector24, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

The submission of Sri Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is only one case against the petitioner and in that too his arrest has been stayed by the High Court.

¶8

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is a member of any gang.

¶9

The allegations in the F.I.R. clearly reveal that an organized gang of offenders with the gang leader Rajeev Sharma is operating wherein petitioner is one of the very active members.

¶10

The said gang is involved in occupying vacant plots of land and in the unauthorized sale and purchase of the same.

¶11

No one from the public is ready and willing to give evidence against the petitioner on account of the terror created by the said gang.

¶12

In view of the above allegations, it is implicit that petitioner is a member of the gang and whether he is actually a member or not or is playing any active role therein are all subject matters of investigation.

¶13

The defence of the petitioner is of no consequence for the purposes of interfering with the F.I.R.

¶14

Since the F.I.R. constitutes a cognizable offence, we decline to interfere with the same in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction and the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for bail/anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Nirmal_Sinha

Raisul Hasan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raisul Hasan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pooja Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ranpal Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raheesh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Awana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Najil Husain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others