Rajesh Kumar Sahu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that even if there were general allegations against the petitioner, it was not inclined to interfere in the matter under its writ jurisdiction. The Court relied on the decision in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 779, to support its view. The operative direction was that if the allegations warranted detention, the police authority should adhere to the provisions of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. in true spirit. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary relief sought by the petitioner was denied.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Sahu, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) dated September 11, 2020, registered under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and to restrain his arrest. The petitioner stated he is engaged in manufacturing electrical equipment, his firm was registered with Trade Tax and later with GST. He also mentioned being granted bail in a previous FIR under various IPC sections. The State opposed the petition, arguing that surveillance revealed an organized gang, led by Avdhesh Kumar, involved in transformer theft, and the petitioner was an active member.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR dated 11.9.2020, Case Crime no. 0390 of 2020, under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is liable to be quashed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR. He highlighted his legitimate business activities and prior bail in another criminal case as evidence of his innocence and lack of involvement in any gang activities. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that surveillance indicated the petitioner was an active member of an organized gang involved in transformer theft, thus justifying the FIR.