State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko. vs Vinay Singh and 3 Others

This is an appeal filed under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Ambedkar Nagar, in Case No. 172/2016 arising out of FIR No. 20/2008 against accused Vinay Singh, Case No. 105/2012 arising out of FIR No. 21/2008 against accused Gyan Singh, Case No. 106/2012 arising out of FIR No. 22/2008 against Gautam Singh, Case No. 107/2012 arising out of FIR No. 23//2008 against accused Vinod Singh all u/s 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Mehrua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by a Station House Officer stating that the accused persons have formed a gang and are involved in commission of the offence. The trial court examined the statement of prosecution witnesses. The informant was examined as PW-1 and he reiterated the FIR version and stated about the involvement of the accused persons in other criminal matters. PW-2 was the scribe of the FIR. PW-3 did not support the prosecution case. PW-4 stated that that he does not recognize the accused persons and he did not know whether the accused persons have formed a gang. No incident had taken place in his presence. PW-5 was the Investigating Officer. PW-6 stated that the accused persons are habitual of committing offences for gaining temporal and pecuniary gains. PW-7- In-charge Jail Superintendent stated that he had lodged a case against one Ajay Singh for creating ruckus in jail but the opposite parties are

¶11

A378D No. 68 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

not accused in that case. No goods were damaged in the incident and no weapon was recovered from any inmate of the jail. PW-8 Retired DSP stated that no evidence had been collected regarding the properties allegedly acquired by the accused persons from commission of offences. No prohibitory order was passed against any of the accused persons by the police or by the Administration.

¶14

The trial Court held that although PW-6 had stated that the accused persons are habitual of committing offences to increase their clout, no other witness has deposed regarding involvement of accused persons in commission of any other offence. PW-6 also did not disclose any particulars of any offence committed by the accused persons and the manner of commission of those offences. He has not given any explanation regarding non-implication of the accused persons in those cases.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned judgment and order establishes that it has been given by the learned trial court after a thorough and proper scrutiny of the prosecution evidence. The findings of the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse.

¶16

In these circumstances, there is no good ground to grant leave to the State to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Ambedkar Nagar.

¶17

Accordingly, leave application is rejected .

¶18

Order on IA-01 of 2026:

¶19

As court has not granted leave to the State to file an appeal against the order dated order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Ambedkar Nagar, in Case No. 172/2016 arising out of FIR No. 20/2008 against accused Vinay Singh, Case No. 105/2012 arising out of FIR No. 21/2008 against accused Gyan Singh, Case No. 106/2012 arising out of FIR No. 22/2008 against Gautam Singh, Case No. 107/2012 arising out of FIR No. 23//2008 against accused Vinod Singh all u/s 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Mehrua, District Ambedkar Nagar, there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application seeking condonation of delay of about 3 months and 22 days as on the date of filing of appeal.

¶20