# Kamran v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 12
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43373 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamran-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52805
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. From the above stated case law it
is apparent that adjudication of questions of
facts and appreciation of evidence or
examining the reliability and credibility of
the version, does not fall within the arena
of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In
view of the material on record it can not be
held that the impugned criminal proceeding
are manifestly attended with mala fide and
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.

22.
The
investigating
Officer
conducted the investigation in this case,
and after due investigation, submitted the
charge-sheet. Since there are specific
allegations against the applicant in the FIR
as well as in the statements of witnesses, a
prima facie offence is made out against the
applicant. At this stage, this Court cannot
see whether a conviction would be
sustainable on the basis of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during the
course of trial. It would be erroneous to
assess the material, collected by the
Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation. The quality of evidence
cannot be appreciated by this Court in this
jurisdiction. It is the duty of the trial court
who will evaluate the evidence and
pronounce the judgement on the basis of
material before him.

23. The submissions raised by learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
call
for
determination on questions of fact which
may be adequately adjudicated upon only
by the trial court and even the submissions
made on points of law can also be more
appropriately gone into only by the trial
court. In view of the aforesaid, no case for
quashing the impugned proceedings or
impugned order is made out. The petition
lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

24. The instant application is hereby
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 12 ILRA 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43373 of 2025

Kamran ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether Section 13 of the Gambling Act is a
cognizable offence and the police can register
the FIR, investigate the matter and can submit
charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate may
proceed as a State case.

Head Notes
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023- Section 528; The Gambling Act,
1867- Sections 3, 4 & 13; The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 155(2)-
The language of Section 13 of the
Gambling Act starts with "a police officer
may
apprehend
without
warrant-"
meaning thereby the police officer may
arrest
any
person
without
obtaining
warrant from any court- Section 13 of the
Gambling Act authorise a police officer to
arrest
any
person
without
warrant-
Application dismissed.(E-15)

Held-Therefore, it cannot be said that Section
13 of the Gambling Act is a non-cognizable
offence and police cannot investigate the matter
without
prior
permission
of
the
learned
Magistrate under section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Para 9 & 10)

Case Law Cited
12 All. Kamran Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
13
Judgment and order dated 12.05.2025 in
Application U/S 482 No.26740/2024 (Imran
Khan And Another vs. State of U.P. and
Another)
:Judgment
and
order
dated
04.07.2025 passed in Application U/S 482
No.29797 of 2024 (Imran Vs. State of U.P. and
Another)

List of Acts
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
The Gambling Act, 1867; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Gambling Act, 1867; Section 13; Cognizable
Offence; Arrest any person without warrant.

Case Arising From
Entire proceedings of Case No.1468 of 2020
(State vs. Imran and Others), arising out of
Case Crime No.1025 of 2019, under Section 13
of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (in short
'Gambling
Act'),
Police
Station
Sikandara,
District Agra, pending in the court of Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra as well as
chargesheet dated 21.12.2019 and Summoning
order dated 24.02.2020 issued in the aforesaid
proceedings.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Diwan Saifullah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Diwan Saifullah Khan,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the State.

2. Present application under Section
528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the
entire proceedings of Case No.1468 of
2020 (State vs. Imran and Others), arising
out of Case Crime No.1025 of 2019, under
Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act,
1867 (in short 'Gambling Act'), Police
Station Sikandara, District Agra, pending in
the
court of
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Agra as well as chargesheet
dated 21.12.2019 and Summoning order
dated 24.02.2020 issued in the aforesaid
proceedings.

3. The prosecution case in brief is to
the effect that a First Information Report
(in short 'FIR) was lodged on 08.12.2019 at
11:09 AM in respect of alleged incident
dated 08.12.2019 at 9:30 AM, at Police
Station Sikandara, District Agra, as Case
Crime No.1025 of 2019, under Section 13
of the Gambling Act. It is alleged by the
informant that the applicant and co-accused
were arrested by the police while playing
cards in the park and Rs.750/- were
recovered from their possession. The
Investigating Officer started investigation
and recorded statements of informant and
other witnesses and submitted chargesheet
in this case on 21.12.2019, under section 13
of the Gambling Act. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of
offence vide order dated 24.02.2020.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
that
the
chargesheet has been filed under section 13
of the Gambling Act where the maximum
sentence in State of Uttar Pradesh is upto
rigorous imprisonment for a term not
exceeding
one
month
and
fine
not
exceeding two hundred fifty rupees nor less
than fifty rupees, in the case of first offence
and in the case of any subsequent offence
to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees
nor less than hundred rupees and rigorous
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months nor less than one month. The
amendment was incorporated in State of
Uttar Pradesh on 07.09.1961, therefore, the
counsel for the applicant opened up his
argument by making a reference to
Schedule 1st part II of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(in
short
'Cr.P.C.') wherein classification of offences
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against
other
laws
in
Cr.P.C.
are
mentioned, as per which the offences
punishable with imprisonment for less than
three years are non cognizable, Bailable
and triable by Magistrate. The learned
counsel further submitted that Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C. mandates that no Police
Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable
case without the order of a Magistrate
having power to try such case or commit
the case for trial and as in the present case
police did not take permission from the
learned Magistrate to commence with the
investigation, thus, the entire proceedings
commence soon after registration of the
FIR become void ab initio. Learned counsel
for the applicant placed reliance upon two
judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court passed on 12.05.2025 in Application
U/S 482 No.26740/2024 (Imran Khan And
Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) and
judgement and order dated 04.07.2025
passed in Application U/S 482 No.29797 of
2024 (Imran Vs. State of U.P. and
Another), wherein it was held that offences
under Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act is a
non-cognizable offence and the learned
Magistrate cannot take cognizance of
offence on a chargesheet rather he has to
follow the procedure, laid down for
complaint cases.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mohd. Afzal,
learned counsel for the State has opposed
the application and submitted that there are
serious allegations of gambling against the
applicant. He further submitted that the
case law, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicant, is not applicable
in the present case since the case law are
related to Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act,
whereas the applicant was chargesheeted
under Section 13 of the Gambling Act,
which is a cognizable offence and the FIR
can
be
registered
and
the
learned
Magistrate can take cognizance on a police
report. He lastly submitted that the present
application is devoid of merit and deserves
to be dismissed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and on perusal of FIR,
chargesheet, and impugned cognizance
order, it is admitted position that the
chargesheet has been filed under section 13
of the Gambling Act and the maximum
punishment in case of first offence is one
month imprisonment and a fine not
exceeding two hundred fifty rupees, in
State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for
the
applicant
has
relied
upon
two
judgments, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court wherein, proceedings under
Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act were
quashed by this Court on the ground that
the offences under Section 3/4 of the
Gambling Act is a non-cognizable offence
and the investigation was barred by Section
155(2) Cr.P.C. In the present case the
proceeding under Section 13 of the
Gambling Act has been challenged and as
per argument advanced by learned counsel
for the State, Section 13 of the Gambling
Act is a cognizable offence and the police
can register the FIR, investigate the matter
and can submit chargesheet and the learned
Magistrate may proceed as a State case.

7. For clarity Section 3, 4 and 13 of
the Gambling Act, 1867 are reproduced
herein:-

"3. Penalty for owning or
keeping, or having charge of a gaminghouse.- Whoever, being the owner or
occupier, or having the use, of any house,
walled enclosure, room or place situated
within the limits to which this Act applies,
opens, keeps or uses the same as a common
gaming-house; and whoever, being the
12 All. Kamran Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
15
owner or occupier of any such house,
walled enclosure, room or place as
aforesaid, knowingly or wilfully permits the
same to be opened, occupied, used or kept
by any other person as a common gaminghouse; and whoever has the care or
management of, or in any manner assists in
conducting, the business of any house,
walled enclosure, room or place as
aforesaid, opened, occupied, used or kept
for the purpose aforesaid; and whoever
advances or furnishes money for the
purpose
of
gaining
with
persons
frequenting such house, walled enclosure,
room or place; shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding two-hundred rupees, or to
imprisonment of either description,1 as
defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), for any term not exceeding three
months.

4. Penalty for being found in
gaming-house.- "Whoever is found in any
such house, walled enclosure, room or
place, playing or gaming with cards, dice,
counters, money or other instruments of
gaming, or is found there present for the
purpose of gaming, whether playing for
any money, wager, stake or otherwise,
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one
hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of
either description,1 as defined in the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for any
term not exceeding one month,2 and any
person found in any common gaminghouse during any gaming or playing
therein shall be presumed, until the
contrary be proved, to have been there
for the purpose of gaming.

13. Gaming and setting birds
and animals to fight in public streets.-A
police officer may apprehend without
warrant-

any person found playing for
money or other valuable thing, with cards,
dice, counters or other instruments of
gaming, used in playing any game not
being a game of mere skill, in any public
street, place or thoroughfare situated
within the limits aforesaid, orany person
setting any birds or animals to fight in any
public street, place, or thoroughfare
situated within the limits aforesaid, or

any person there present aiding
and abetting such public fighting of birds
and animals.

Such person when apprehended
shall be brought without delay before a
Magistrate, and shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding fifty rupees, or to imprisonment,
either simple or rigorous, for any term not
exceeding one calendar month;

Destruction of instruments of
gaming found in public streets.-And such
police officer may seize all instruments of
gaming found in such public place or on
the person of those whom he shall so
arrest, and the Magistrate may, on
conviction of the offender, order such
instruments to be forthwith destroyed.

Uttar Pradesh:

In Section 13,-

(a) for the words "playing for
money or other valuable thing with cards,
dice, counters or other instruments of
gaming, used in playing any game not
being a game of mere skill", substitute the
word "gaming".

[Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1917,
Section 5]
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) between paras. 1 and 2, add
the following new paragraph as follows:

"any person found in any public
street, place or thoroughfare within the
limits aforesaid with any instruments of
gaming, or;

(c) for the words, in para. 2, "or
any person there present aiding and
abetting such public fighting of birds and
animals", substitute the word "or any
person there present making preparation
for or aiding or abetting such gaming or
public fighting of birds or animals"; and

(d) in the last para the semi-colon
after the words "shall be liable" shall be
deleted and a dash substituted therefor and
clauses (a) and (b) after the said words
"shall be liable" shall be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:

"in the case of a first offence to a
fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty
rupees nor less than fifty rupees; or to
rigorous imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one month; and

in the case of any subsequent
offence to a fine not exceeding five hundred
rupees nor less than one hundred rupees,
and rigorous imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months nor less than one
month."-

[Uttar Pradesh Act 21 of 1961,
Section 9 (w.e.f. 7-9-1961)]"

8. The State of U.P. had enhanced the
sentence in Section 13 of the Gambling Act
in the year 1961 by bringing State
Amendment through U.P. Act no.21 of
1961 in the Gambling Act whereby the
punishment was enhanced accordingly, for
a first offence, the offender may have to
pay a fine between Rs.fifty and two
hundred fifty and may be awarded rigorous
imprisonment for upto one month. For any
later offences, the maximum fine shall be
five hundred rupees and the offender may
be awarded rigorous imprisonment for a
term not exceeding six months nor less than
one month.

9. The language of Section 13 of the
Gambling Act starts with "a police officer
may
apprehend
without
warrant-"
meaning thereby the police officer may
arrest any person without obtaining warrant
from any court. Here one has to understand
the difference between the cognizable
offence and non-cognizable offence which
have been defined in Section 2(c) and 2(l)
of Cr.P.C. respectively. Section 2(c) and
2(l) of Cr.P.C. are reproduced herein:-

"2.(c) "cognizable offence" means
an offence for which, and 'cognizable case"
means a case in which, a police officer
may, in accordance with the First Schedule
or under any other law for the time being in
force, arrest without warrant;

(l)
"non-cognizable
offence"
means an offence for which, and "noncognizable case" means a case in which, a
police officer has no authority to arrest
without warrant;"

10. It is very clear from the above
definition of cognizable offence and noncognizable offences that in a case of
cognizable offences, a police officer may
arrest any person without warrant whereas
in non-cognizable offence a police officer
has no right to arrest without warrant.
Section 13 of the Gambling Act authorise a
police officer to arrest any person without
warrant, therefore, it cannot be said that
12 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
17
Section 13 of the Gambling Act is a noncognizable offence and police cannot
investigate
the
matter
without
prior
permission of the learned Magistrate under
section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

11. The judgments and orders dated
12.05.2025 as well as 04.07.2025 relied on
by the learned counsel for the applicant are
entirely different on the facts wherein, it
has been held that Section 3/4 of the
Gambling Act are non-cognizable offences.
The facts of the aforesaid judgments are not
similar to the facts of the present case. The
FIR may be registered under Section 13 of
the Gambling Act and the police has
authority
to
register
the
FIR
and
investigate the matter and the learned
Magistrate did not commit any illegality
or irregularity in taking cognizance of
offence on police report. Therefore, the
present
application
lacks
merit
and
deserves to be dismissed.

12.
Accordingly,
the
present
application is hereby dismissed.

13. No other argument was advanced
by the learned counsel for the applicant.

14. However, keeping in mind the
punishment of the offence in question, the
trial court is directed to conclude the trial
of the aforesaid case, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
---------
(2025) 12 ILRA 17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 BNSS No. 687 of 2025

Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether an application for
anticipatory bail u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is maintainable directly
before the High Court without first approaching
the Court of Session, and if so, whether the
facts of the instant case disclose the existence
of "special circumstances" justifying such direct
invocation of the High Court's jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
196(1)(a),
196(1)(b),
197(1)(a),
197(1)(b),
197(1)(c),
197(1)(d),
353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 - Information
Technology
Act,
2008
-
s.
69(a)
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles
19(1)(a), 141 - The applicant, a folk singer
and social media user, is named as an
accused in an FIR dated 27.04.2025
alleging commission of offences under
various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and s. 69(a) of Information
Technology Act, 2008, on the basis of
certain posts and video clips uploaded by
her on her Twitter handle in the aftermath
of terrorist attack at Pahalgam, Jammu
and Kashmir, in which several tourists lost
their lives - It was alleged that through
these
posts,
the
applicant
made
objectionable and provocative statements
adversely
affecting
national
integrity,
disturbing
communal
harmony,
and
inciting hatred, which were allegedly
circulated widely - Apprehending arrest in
the said case, the applicant approached
the
High
Court
directly
seeking
anticipatory
bail,
asserting
false
implication, invoking her right to freedom
of speech, and contending that she was
not residing within the jurisdiction of the
concerned Sessions Court - The State
opposed the application on grounds of
maintainability, gravity of allegations,