Dismissed

Aurangjeb @ Aurang v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022CRLP/8964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the FIR under the U.P. Gangster Act, arguing it was based on a solitary case. The court relied on Somvir case law, held that a single case can justify the offense, and dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to approach the competent court for bail.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner advised to apply to competent court for anticipatory bail.

Aurangjeb @ Aurang Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8964 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Aurangjeb @ Aurang Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S. A. Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 23.6.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 111 of 2022, under Section-3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P. S.Ahraura, District-Mirzapur and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that only on the basis of solitary case, the proceeding under Section-3 (1) of U.P. Gangster Act has been drawn, which is liable to be set aside.

¶8

As has been propounded by Division Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2019 (Somvir Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) as well as in many judgments by this Court that even a single case, if fulfills the category of offences given under Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that based on solitary case, the imposition of Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act is not leviable, would have no bearing.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid dictum, even on the basis of solitary case, the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 can be imposed.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶13

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.12.03 16:35:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aurangjeb @ Aurang v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aurangjeb @ Aurang 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Nigam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Rauf Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Chaudhary Vs State of U P and 17 Others

Pankaj @ Kuldeep and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Intjar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others