Prabhakar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others

#1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A for State/respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

#2. Perused the record.

#3. Petitioner-Prabhakar has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the first informant report dated

14.03.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent-6, Ravindra Kumar, Station House Officer, Police Station-Majhola, District-Moradabad and registered as Case Crime No. 0254 of 2026 under Sections 3/2 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Majhola, District-Moradabad (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

#4. Learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition submits that co-accused Kamalveer Aatmaj has already approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7188 of 2026 (Kamalveer Aatmaj Vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh Dwara Pramukh Sachiv Grah and 5 Others). In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order dated 20.04.2026 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 20.04.2026 is reproduced herein under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only on the basis of a solitary case, the impugned first information report under Section 2/3 2 CRLP No. 10753 of 2026 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has been slapped against the petitioner, as such, the impugned first information report is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

#3. Matter requires consideration.

#4. Learned AGA prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

#5. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

#6. List on 20.7.2026.

#7. Till then, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of FIR dated

14.3.2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad."

#5. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner would thus submit that since writ petition on behalf of co-accused has already been entertained by this Court, therefore, dictates of prudence require that aforementioned writ petition be connected along with present writ petition. Both the writ petitions be heard together but after enabling the parties to exchange their pleadings. However, in the interregnum, the liberty of petitioner be protected.

#6. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that since the decision taken by the State-respondents to launch criminal prosecution against petitioner is under Sections 3/2 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is itself illegal, unjust and arbitrary, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant consequential impugned FIR also cannot be sustained in law and fact.

#7. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has invited the attention of Court to the document occurring at pages-73 & 74 of the paper book. With reference to the said document, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that though there was a joint meeting of minds, which is in compliance of Rule 5(3)(A) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention), Rules, 2021, however, no reason has been recorded therein, on the basis of which, it was concluded by State-respondents that criminal prosecution of petitioner is warranted under Sections 3/2 of The 3 CRLP No. 10753 of 2026 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Since no categorical reason has been recorded by the State-respondents in support of aforesaid conclusion, the decision so taken by the State-respondents cannot be sustained either in law or oo facts. In view of above, the impugned FIR pursuant to which, the criminal prosecution of petitioner under Sections 3/2 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has come into existence also cannot be sustained. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3141, wherein the Division Bench has categorically observed that cogent and specific reason should be recorded for initiating criminal prosecution of an accused under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. On the edifice of above submissions, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned FIR cannot be sustained in law and fact. As such, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

#8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits that since upon perusal of the impugned FIR, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition as noted herein above with reference to the record at this stage.

#9. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and upon perusal of record, we find that matter requires consideration.

#10. Connect Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7188 of 2026 (Kamalveer Aatmaj Vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh Dwara Pramukh Sachiv Grah and 5 Others) along with present writ petition.

#11. Notice on behalf of State-respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

#12. Issue notice to first informant-respondent-6.

#13. Steps for service upon first informant-respondent-6 shall be taken by the 4 CRLP No. 10753 of 2026 learned counsel for petitioners within the time period provided under the Rules of Court.

#14. All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within 6 weeks.

#15. Petitioner will have 2 weeks thereafter to file their rejoinder affidavits.

#16. List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on

11.08.2026 along with connected writ petition.

#17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further orders of this Court, petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0254 of 2026 under Sections 3/2 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) arising out of FIR dated 14.03.2026.

#18. We are not unmindful of the judgment of Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948. Therefore, we further direct that investigation of concerned case crime number may go on but the requisite police report in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS shall not be submitted by the Investigating Officer before Court till the pendency of present writ petition.

#19. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.

#20. Assignment, if any, stands discharged. May 12, 2026 Vinay (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)