Dismissed

Akeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020CRLP/13669/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court entertained a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Gangster Act and a stay of arrest. It held that the FIR could not be quashed as it required investigation. Consequently, the court declined the prayer for stay of arrest, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer for stay of arrest till submission of Section 173(2) report denied.

Akeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 35 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13669 of 2020 Petitioner :- Akeel Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra,Praveen Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶3

A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, in compliance of order dated 07.12.2020, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material on record. Instant petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 18.08.2020. Further prayer is for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No.1260 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶4

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, by lodging the impugned FIR on basis of a solitary case.

¶5

We have gone through the first information report of the case on basis of which the present FIR has been lodged. The allegation in the earlier FIR was that the petitioner alongwith members of his gang were caught gambling on the sixth floor of flat no.605 and a total sum of Rs.2,55,400/- alongwwith two sets of playing cards were recovered from their custody.

¶6

Whether the petitioner is member of gang or not, cannot be decided at this stage, being matter of investigation. We agree with the submission of learned AGA that the First Information Report cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶7

In respect of the second prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for stay of arrest of the petitioner till submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we would like to take notice of the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani; 2017 (2) SCC 779 wherein the Supreme Court has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies from arresting the accused where prayer for quashing the FIR has been declined. Relying on the said decision, the Supreme Court entertained Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2020 (Samiksha Singh @ Nikki v. The State of U.P. & Others) wherein similar direction issued by the High Court staying arrest until the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was under challenge. The order is as follows:-

¶8

"1. Mr Sanchit Garga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that while the High Court declined to quash the FIR, at the same time, it has granted an order protecting the accused from arrest until the submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which, it has been submitted, is impermissible in law. He relies on a decision of this Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani.

¶9

Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

¶10

Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, in addition."

¶11

Having regard to the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana (supra), we also decline to grant the second prayer.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail/bail, if the situation so warrants. If any such recourse is taken, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.

¶14

(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Order Date :- 10.12.2020 VKG

Akeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akeel Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahab Singh and Others Vs State

Ram Milan and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Askeen and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lala Ram Vs State of U.P.

Darshan Dusadh Vs State of U.P.