Disposed¶18

Hasmat @ Chotey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026NA528/5802/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application; U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 sections 2/3; Rule 5(3)(a) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021; gang-chart mechanical approval; procedural safeguards; charge-sheet dated 03.07.2022; cognizance order dated 09.09.2022; Case Crime No. 28 of 2022; P.S. Garhmukteshwer, District Hapur; Special Judge Gangsters Act Hapur; interim stay of proceedings; Vinod Bihari Lal 2025 SCC Online SC 1216; Allahabad High Court; Vivek Kumar Singh, J.; Hasmat @ Chotey v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of further proceedings in Case No. 1143 of 2022 against the applicant till the next date of listing (20.03.2026); learned AGA directed to obtain instructions within two weeks. Application otherwise pending, no final adjudication on merits.

Hasmat @ Chotey vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5802 of 2026

Hasmat @ Chotey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satyam Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 81

¶10

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party no.1.

¶12

Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 03.07.2022 along with cognizance order dated 09.09.2022 in Case No.1143 of 2022 (State Vs. Hasmat @ Chotey) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2022, under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Garhmukteshwer, District - Hapur, pending in the court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Hapur.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that Rule 5(3)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 has not been followed. It is also submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 should be based on proper adherence to procedural safeguards, independent application of mind by the competent authorities and substantive evidence. Mere mechanical approval of gang-charts and lack of compliance with mandatory rules invalidates the proceedings. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1216.

¶14