Disposed

Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021CRLP/17154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging attachment of ancestral property under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the authority to hear the pending objection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondent directed to decide pending objection expeditiously after opportunity of hearing.

Deepak Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17154 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Deepak Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, praying for the following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 1411 of 2020 (State Versus Deepak Yadav), under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986 (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition)".

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that property attached by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 14.08.2020, is an ancestral property and is owned by the petitioner no. 2, who is grand father of the petitioner No.1. He further submitted that the attachment order dated 14.08.2020, is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

Be that as it may, the petitioner no.2 has already filed an objection/representation dated 22.09.2020 before the respondent no.2 under Section 15 of of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1989, which is stated to be pending.

¶10

In view of aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioners, writ petition is disposed of , directing the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of submission of copy of this order along with copy of aforesaid objection/representation, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Petitioners are also directed to cooperate in the proceeding and produce all the relevant documents, which they intend to rely in support of their contentions.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.2.2021 T.S.

Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Yadav and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Kumar Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Yadav @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Agnihotri and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Irfan and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others