Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
8 judgments · newest first · showing 1–8
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Ravi Chaudhari, who was charged under Sections 3(1), 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi) and 2(b)(xiv) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Krishna Jatav under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that he …
The High Court of Allahabad considered the bail application of Arif, who was arrested under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act falling within the statutory definition of …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant, Kallu alias Ashok Yadav, argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajeet Yadav under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Aalim Urf Nanhka in Criminal Case No. 517 of 2026 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that he had previously been granted bail in several gang‑related cases …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ranjan Yadav under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and …
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Naved Urf Dulha, who was arrested under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of …
