Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42215 (ALL)

SURAJ CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/8153/2025 · 2025-04-27

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Sandeep Chaudhary Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64674-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8153 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suraj Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 20.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No.221 of 2025, Under Section 2 (b) (iv), 2 (b) (xi), 2 (b) (xvii), 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. The instant writ petition is opposed by the learned AGA on the ground that it has been filed with material concealment, as the petitioner, despite having criminal antecedents in 34 cases, has falsely averred innocence and claimed that gangster proceedings have been initiated merely on the basis of a solitary case. It is further submitted that gangster proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the second time. Reliance has been placed on the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025 (Munnesh vs. State of U.P.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, noticing the growing trend of concealment of criminal antecedents in petitions seeking bail or protection from arrest, has directed that individuals approaching the Court must mandatorily disclose in the synopsis whether they have any criminal background, and any failure to do so may result in dismissal of the petition. 4. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to press the writ petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad