UP State vs Avneesh Yadav Advocate - ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY — 400179/2012
Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Section 3(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 20th March 2026.
Special Trial
CNR: UPSN010009822012
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
400179/2012
Filing Date
30-03-2012
Registration No
400179/2012
Registration Date
30-03-2012
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
637
Police Station
AURAI
Year
2006
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UP State
Adv. Adgc
Respondent(s)
Avneesh Yadav Advocate - ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Special Sessions Court (Gangster Act) in Bhadohi acquitted Avnish Kumar Yadav of charges under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court found that while the prosecution alleged Yadav was a gang leader involved in robberies and thefts, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he possessed the essential characteristics of a gangster—specifically, that his activities were aimed at disrupting public order or obtaining unlawful economic/physical benefits as part of an organized gang structure, as required by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Special Sessions Court (Gangster Act) in Bhadohi acquitted Avnish Kumar Yadav of charges under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court found that while the prosecution alleged Yadav was a gang leader involved in robberies and thefts, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he possessed the essential characteristics of a gangster—specifically, that his activities were aimed at disrupting public order or obtaining unlawful economic/physical benefits as part of an organized gang structure, as required by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts