State vs Roopram 1 Other Advocate - Rakesh Chandra — 600055/2009
Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act Section 2,3. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 19th March 2026.
G.S.T. - Gangaster Sessions Trial
CNR: UPET010002922009
Filing Number
600055/2009
Filing Date
09-01-2009
Registration No
600055/2009
Registration Date
09-01-2009
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
402
Police Station
SAKEET
Year
2007
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. ADGC
Respondent(s)
Roopram 1 Other Advocate - Rakesh Chandra
Dhanpal
Adv. Rakesh chandra
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge (Gangster Act) in Etah, Uttar Pradesh acquitted accused Rupram and Dhanpal of charges under sections 2/3 of the UP Prohibition of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove the specific elements required for gangster act convictions. The court determined that prosecution witnesses failed to establish that the accused committed organized criminal activities to create terror or acquire illicit wealth, and noted that the accused had been acquitted in several prior cases cited as evidence of their criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge (Gangster Act) in Etah, Uttar Pradesh acquitted accused Rupram and Dhanpal of charges under sections 2/3 of the UP Prohibition of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove the specific elements required for gangster act convictions. The court determined that prosecution witnesses failed to establish that the accused committed organized criminal activities to create terror or acquire illicit wealth, and noted that the accused had been acquitted in several prior cases cited as evidence of their criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts