State vs Gajendra alias Bhola Yadav Advocate - Pradeep kumar — 15/2018
Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (prevention) Act Section 2,3. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th April 2026.
G.S.T. - Gangaster Sessions Trial
CNR: UPET010028362018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2055/2018
Filing Date
29-03-2018
Registration No
15/2018
Registration Date
30-03-2018
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
311
Police Station
KOTWALI DEHAT
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. ADGC Crl
Respondent(s)
Gajendra alias Bhola Yadav Advocate - Pradeep kumar
Pravesh
Adv. Pradeep kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Court No. 03
Disposed
Arguments
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 21-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge acquitted Gajendra alias Bhola and Prabesh Yadav of charges under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove they formed an organized criminal gang or caused terror/obtained illegal benefits. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish specific elements required under the Act, and that the accused had been acquitted in related cases (Crime No. 101/2017 and 181/2017) upon which this case primarily relied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge acquitted Gajendra alias Bhola and Prabesh Yadav of charges under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, 1986, finding insufficient evidence to prove they formed an organized criminal gang or caused terror/obtained illegal benefits. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish specific elements required under the Act, and that the accused had been acquitted in related cases (Crime No. 101/2017 and 181/2017) upon which this case primarily relied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts