State vs Avadhesh Advocate - Rajkumar — 600016/2013
Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act Section 2/3. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 01st April 2026.
G.S.T. - Gangaster Sessions Trial
CNR: UPET010011782013
Filing Number
600016/2013
Filing Date
05-09-2013
Registration No
600016/2013
Registration Date
05-09-2013
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
348
Police Station
KOTWALI DEHAT
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. ADGC
Respondent(s)
Avadhesh Advocate - Rajkumar
Shilendra
Adv. Navin Kumar
Pramod
Adv. Navin Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 19-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge (Gangster Act) at Etah acquitted defendants Avdesh and Shilendra (Shilesh) of charges under Sections 2/3 of the UP Prohibition of Organized Crime Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove they formed an organized gang or created terror/acquired unlawful wealth through violent crimes. The prosecution failed to establish the specific elements required under the Gangster Act despite presenting three witnesses, as none could demonstrate how the accused caused fear in society or acquired assets through organized criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge (Gangster Act) at Etah acquitted defendants Avdesh and Shilendra (Shilesh) of charges under Sections 2/3 of the UP Prohibition of Organized Crime Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove they formed an organized gang or created terror/acquired unlawful wealth through violent crimes. The prosecution failed to establish the specific elements required under the Gangster Act despite presenting three witnesses, as none could demonstrate how the accused caused fear in society or acquired assets through organized criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts