Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6457 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajau And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Home Dept.Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- Shishir Pradhan Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as
well as perused the record.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated
30.6.2010 lodged by the Opposite Party No. 3 at Crime No. 812/2010, under
Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
registered at Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raibareli and also for
direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the said
impugned First Information Report.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per gang chart
a criminal history of as many as four cases has been shown against the
Petitioner No. 1. Out these four cases, two cases relate to U.P. Excise Act,
which are not covered under the Gangster Act. One case is under Section 110
Cr. P.C. which is too not covered under the Gangster Act. Moreover, the
accused-petitioner no. 1 is already on bail in all the four cases. A criminal
history of as many as two cases has been shown against the Petitioner No. 2.
Out of these two cases, one case relates to U.P. Excise Act which is not
covered under the Gangster Act. Therefore, they need interim protection.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition and argued that the accused-petitioners
were found involved in manufacturing illegal country-made liquor which was
injuries to health. A criminal history of as many as four cases has been shown
against the Petitioner No. 1 and a criminal history of as many as two cases has
been shown against the Petitioner No.2. Therefore, they do not deserve any
interim protection.
We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report
which disclose the commission of cognizable offence and as such it cannot be
quashed.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, keeping in vies the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
provided that if the petitioners appear before the court below and move any
application for bail, the same shall be heard and decided by the courts below
expeditiously.
Order Date :- 13.7.2010
Santosh/-