Disposed¶19

Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025CRLP/27307/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 appeal; stay application rejected without reasons; non-application of mind; Commissioner Basti Region order dated 24.10.2025 quashed partially; fresh decision with speaking order directed; interim stay of District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar Section 3(3) order dated 12.09.2025; Allahabad High Court 2025; single-judge bench Avnish Saxena.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.10.2025 quashed to the extent of rejection of the stay application; respondent no.3 (Commissioner, Basti Region) to re-decide the stay application with a speaking order; and, till then, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar's order dated 12.09.2025 to remain stayed. ¶19

Mohd. Umar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commissioner, Basti Region's order dated 24.10.2025, which admitted the petitioner's Section 6 appeal but rejected his stay application without assigning reasons or considering the grounds urged, should be quashed to that extent. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The order dated 24.10.2025 discloses non-application of mind in rejecting the stay application; it is therefore quashed to the extent of the rejection of the stay application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.3 (Commissioner, Basti Region) shall decide the stay application afresh with a speaking order.

¶17

Key takeaways

Till the stay application is decided, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar's order dated 12.09.2025 shall remain stayed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27307 of 2025 (Court No. 81, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.; decided 26.11.2025) — Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P. & 3 others: The petitioner's appeal under Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 (Case No. 1369 of 2025) against the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar's order dated 12.09.2025 in Case No. 1792 of 2024 under Section 3(3) was admitted by the Commissioner, Basti Region on 24.10.2025 after condonation of delay, but the same order rejected his stay application without assigning reasons or considering the grounds urged. Finding non-application of mind, the Court quashed the 24.10.2025 order to the extent of the rejection of the stay application, directed respondent no.3 to re-decide the stay application with a speaking order, and stayed the District Magistrate's order dated 12.09.2025 till then; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27307 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Umar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 81

¶7

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶8

Sri Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner appears and submits that the appeal filed under Section 6 of U.P.Control of Goonda Act, 1970 has been admitted by order dated 24.10.2025 after condoning the delay. By the same order the stay application of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason. Hence, the present writ petition. Following prayer has been made by the petitioner

¶9

" i) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, passed by Commissioner Basti Region, Basti, in Case No. 1369 of 2025 (Mohd. Umar Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 6 of U.P.Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, passed by District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Case No. 1792 of 2024 (State Vs. Mohd. Umar) under Section 3(3) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. "

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has opposed the writ petition.

¶11

This Court has taken into consideration the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, which reveals that no reason has been assigned by the respondent no.3 ( Commissioner Basti Region Basti ) in rejecting the application for stay. More over the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal and application for stay has also not been considered. The order dated 24.10.2025 is reiterated underneath :-

¶12

"पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई। पुकार करायी गई। अपीलकतार् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता एवं सहायक िजला

¶13

CRLP No. 27307 of 2025

¶14

¶15

शासकीय अिधवक्ता (फौजदारी) उपिस्थत हुए, उनके तकोर् को ध्यानपूवर्क सुना गया। पत्रावली का भली भाँित अवलोकन िकया गया। यह अपील िजला मिजस्ट्रेट िसद्धाथर्नगर के आदेश िदनांक 12.09.2025 के िवरूद्ध धारा 5 िमयाद अिधिनयम के प्राथर्ना पत्र के साथ िदनांक 13.10.2025 को योिजत की गई है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रकरण को अिन्तम रूप से िनस्तािरत िकया गया है। अपील पोषणीय है। अपीलकतार् के स्थगन प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक 13.10.2025 पर िवचार करने के पश्चात स्थगन िदये जाने का औिचत्य प्रतीत नही होता है।

¶16

तदनुसार अपीलकतार् को घारा 5 िमयाद अिधिनयम का लाभ देते हुए अपील िवचाराथर् ग्रहण की जाती है। अवर न्यायालय की मूल पत्रावली मंगायी जाय। प्रितपक्षी को जिरये समन / रिजस्ट्री समन, सूिचत िकया जाय। पत्रावली सुनवाई हेतु िदनांक 24.11.2025 को पेश हो।"

¶17

The order reveals that non application of mind in rejecting the application for stay, hence the order dated 24.10.2025 is quashed to the extent of rejecting of stay application. The respondent no.3 shall decide the application for stay application with speaking order.

¶18

Till then, the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar shall remain stayed.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶21

November 26, 2025

¶22

Abhishek Sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamshad Ali @ Kannu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Jitendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Smt. Arti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others