Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
12 judgments · newest first · showing 1–12
The accused, Brijesh Kumar Tripathi, filed a bail application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, while the trial was pending. He claimed false implication and highlighted his prior criminal history, noting that he had been in …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Kumar Ahirwar, who was arrested under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and had been in jail since 13 August 2026. The applicant claimed false implication and pointed to …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Neelesh Kumar and two others who were arrested under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated and pointed to their existing …
The accused Mohd. Gufran and Mohd. Sufian applied for bail in a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. They claimed false implication, noting that one has a prior conviction while the other has no criminal record, and …
Himanshu Singh (alias Chotu Singh) applied for bail in a criminal case filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He claimed false implication, noting that he was already on bail in two related cases and had a criminal history but was cooperating with …
Mahabeer, an accused under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, applied for bail while in jail since 20‑08‑2026. He claimed false implication and cited his criminal history, noting that he was cooperating with the investigation. The State opposed the bail. …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by accused Siyaram Chero under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, while the trial was pending. The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and …
Kanhaiya Bind applied for bail under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, claiming he was falsely implicated and has no prior criminal record. He had been in custody since 29‑08‑2026 while the investigation continued. The State opposed the …
Shakeel alias Hazi Bona applied for bail in a case under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging false police implication. His first bail plea was dismissed, but he relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment (Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu …
Shivam filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20‑03‑2026 that was lodged under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He argued that the decision to prosecute was illegal because the State authorities did not …
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, challenging a lower court order that set aside a District Magistrate's attachment of a motorcycle belonging to Vinay Rai. The attachment was made on the basis of a …
The appellants, members of a political party, were arrested after a communal protest triggered by an incendiary social media post on 10 October 2022 and were later released on bail. Six months later, the police prepared a gang chart and lodged a fresh FIR on 30 April 2023 under the Uttar Pradesh …
