[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] 'No Respect For Law': Allahabad High Court Slams UP Cops Over SC Arrest Guideline Violations & 20+ Hour Delay In Releasing Accused Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97 Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97 The Allahabad High Court slammed the UP...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026.
The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'.
Case title - Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Taking 'judicial notice' of the fact that a daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a 'nightmare' which invites 'uncontrollable' reactions from parents, mostly violent, the Allahabad High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a couple convicted of killing their minor daughter and their 28-year-old tenant.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the wife and husband duo who killed their 15-year-old daughter and their tenant with whom she allegedly had an affair, as they were upset over her pregnancy.
Case title - Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Judicial Officer, while discharging his judicial function, is above the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even the political head of a State, and that disregarding his order is 'unpardonable'.
The Court added that such disregard for the orders passed by a Judicial Officer is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law.
Also from the order : Faulty CCTVs A 'Routine Feature' In UP: Allahabad High Court Deems Surprise Police Station Inspections Part Of CJMs' Official Duty
Case title - Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that merely calling a person by referring to his or her profession would not, by itself, attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The Court clarified that such words must be used intentionally to humiliate a victim belonging to the SC/ST Community to constitute an offence under the Act.
Case Title: Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another v. Indra Mohan Sachdev 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court expressed shock at the conduct of a trial judge for ignoring photocopy of the death certificate of an individual in a title dispute, thereby causing wrongful gain to the plaintiff.
Stating that the reasons assigned by the judicial officer were perverse, dishonest and passed to give undue advantage to the plaintiff, Justice Sandeep Jain observed:
“The reason assigned by the trial court for ignoring the death certificate of Sushila Mehra is shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous considerations. The trial court purposely in order to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff has ignored it, which needs to be deprecated. The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner whatsoever. It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge doubtful. This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court that how could a Judge act in this manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff. The facts of the case speak for themselves, the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of daylight judicial murder.”
FIR Not Doubtful Or Diluted Merely Because It Was Lodged With Advocate's Help: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Jagdamba Harijan Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court has held that FIR cannot be considered doubtful or diluted merely because it was filed with the assistance of an advocate.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that legal assistance is available to all at all stages of criminal proceedings and can be availed even at the stage of filing of FIR.
Case Title: Dayanand and 2 others Versus Mohan @ Ghure 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court allowed an amendment application filed in a suit filed in the year 1997 on grounds that the amendment in proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI, specifying the bar on amendments in suits after commencement of trials, was enacted in 2002, i.e., after filing of the suit.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“The suit is of the year 1997 which is pre amendment and therefore, amended proviso will not apply to the suit in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council..”
The Allahabad High Court has held that information on marks in public exams is not confidential information and does not require consent of the third party, whose marks are sought by the RTI applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Title: Kishori Lal vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court has held that death by snake bite entitles dependents for ex-gratia relief from the State Disaster Relief Fund.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“it is evident that the government notification dated 02.08.2018 clearly recognizes death due to snake bite as a circumstance entitling the dependents of the deceased to ex gratia relief. It is also apparent that the notification dated 02.08.2018 is a State-specific policy intended to aid in cases of disasters or calamities which are not included for relief under other policies. The said notification, therefore, contemplates relief to families affected by specific local contingencies, including death due to snake bite.”
Case Title: Amit Gupta And 5 Others vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The Allahabad High Court held that a writ petition against recruitment advertisement by All India Institute of Medical Science, Raebareli is not maintainable.
While dismissing the writ petition, Justice Shree Prakash Singh relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar V. Union Of India to hold that,
“...the tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules and even the vires of the act of the statutory legislation can also be looked into, by the Tribunals.”
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.
Case title - Mansoor Ansari vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court set aside the attachment of immovable property belonging to one Mansoor Ansari, the cousin of gangster Mukhtar Ansari, as it observed that the State failed to establish any nexus between the commission of any offence and the construction of the building/shops in question.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh clarified that the State cannot seize property under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on "mere bald allegations" or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster.
Ad-Hoc Service Can't Be Ignored For Promotion If Appointment Was Not Illegal: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: State of U.P. Thru.Prin./Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.Housing and Urban Planning Govt. U.P. Lko.and Anr vs Anil Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court has held that ad-hoc service of an employee cannot be ignored by the government for promotion if appointment was not illegal. It also held that promotion must be awarded to an employee, whose claim was illegally ignored, from the date on which his juniors were given promotion.
Holding that an ad-hoc appointment made pursuant to the rules can at best be irregular and not illegal, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla has held,
“….if claim of an employee has been illegally ignored and juniors have been promoted, the said employee is bound to be promoted from the date his juniors were given such promotion…”
Case Title: Vansh Nigam and another vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power to suo moto invite applications for insurance claims under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 when he/she comes to know of an accident. Further, the Court held that Collector has the powers of the Civil Court and provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to claims under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Versus Smt Nidhi Dohre And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court has held that only Family Court has the jurisdiction to deal with disputes (suits or other proceedings) between married couples regarding the properties owned by them.
Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“Explanation (c) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act,1984 provides that suits or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them, are only cognizable by the Family Court.”
Case Title: Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing amendment application in a suit must be decided in reference to the stage at which the suit is, rather than from the date on which the suit was instituted.
Observing that the jurisdiction to allow amendments at any stage is provided under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Such amendments as are directed towards putting-form and seeking determination of the real question in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof.”
Case Title: Reena v. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman, who entered into a bigamous marriage before being appointed as a government school teacher, cannot be punished for misconduct on this ground under U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules and U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
It however held that the candidate, who contracted marriage in 2009 with a person whose first marriage was subsisting, will be ineligible for appointment as a teacher under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 as this defect goes to the very root of the appointment, rendering it void ab initio.
Case title - Munazir Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court held that Article 25 of the Constitution of India protects the right to congregate for worship for every religious denomination in the country, but it does not accord protection to incitement of one faith by another in the garb of prayer.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that there can be no impediment or embargo with regard to prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.
Case title - Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court noted that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to 'browbeat' Magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly 'uncomfortable' cases are passed by them.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi firmly advised Magistrates that if any such embarrassment or pressure is faced from any police officer, it is always open to them to make a contempt reference to the High Court.
Case title - Shri Sukhnandan vs. Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an unborn child aged five months or more in the mother's womb is treated as equal to a child in existence and the Railway would be liable to pay separate compensation for the accidental death of such an unborn child, distinct from the compensation awarded for the death of the mother.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar thus allowed an appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal in Lucknow by granting an additional compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the claimant for the loss of a foetus.
Case Title: Magghu Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt. ) Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be invoked to title and ownership disputes between third parties who are not related to the senior citizens.
It held that the Act is for the maintenance and protection of senior citizens by those who will inherit their property, not for deciding the title and ownership of the property which can only be done after examination of evidence in civil proceedings.
Case Title: Lalsa Devi Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
While dealing with a case of financial assistance being sought by a deceased farmer's family in the schemes enacted by the State Government, the Allahabad High Court observed that making the widow of the farmer approach the Court multiple times to get such assistance under a welfare scheme due to inaction on part of the authorities cannot be sustained.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed,
“Administrative action of this nature, marked by indifference to the plight of a beneficiary under a welfare scheme, cannot be sustained in a constitutional system committed to securing social justice.”
Case title - Babloo Yadav @ Billa vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
To boost digital efficiency, the Allahabad High Court has suggested that the Uttar Pradesh government should engage tech-savvy young advocates and fresh law graduates as honorary Research Associates in the office of the Government Advocate and in the Joint Director, Prosecution, High Court.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this suggestion, noting that it is the need of the hour to ramp up digitisation efforts and urgently address severe staff shortages in the office of the Government Advocate.
Case Title: Smt. Alka Singhania Versus Smt. Shilpi Agarwal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court has held that condition of surety for grant of succession certificate under section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be imposed mechanically in all cases. It held that in cases where their is a sole heir or no objection is being raised regarding grant of certificate to one heir, such conditions must not be imposed.
Mutation Cannot Be Allowed Based On Sale Deed Allegedly Executed 45 Years Ago: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Dalbir And 3 Others Versus Board Of Revenue Prayagraj And 18 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though there is no limitation for mutation in revenue records, the same cannot be allowed based on sale deed allegedly executed 45 years ago.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed
“It is material to mention that mutation application have been filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour which should not be allowed although there is no limitation for filing the mutation application but the filing of mutation application after more than 45 years, creates doubt about the document in question.”
Case Title: Kusum Mishra And Another Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court has held that Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., which restricts parties form adducing additional evidence before appellate Courts, is not applicable in appeals against order of temporary injunction by the Trial Court.
Referring to Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held
“the aforesaid Rule applies to filing of additional evidence in appeal, after the parties have availed the opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court. In the present case, evidence is yet to be produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. will not apply to filing documents before the appellate Court while challenging the validity of an order of temporary injunction.”
Case title - Mohd. Faizan and 2 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an application under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable against an order refusing discharge passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, even if the state police investigated the scheduled offence
The Court held that the remedy against such orders is to file a statutory appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008.
Case title - Rameshwar Singh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and 7-year rigorous imprisonment of a man who shot his wife in February 1983 inside their matrimonial home over an unfulfilled dowry demand for a motorcycle.
Dismissing the husband's criminal appeal filed in 1985, the Court relied heavily on the testimony of the injured wife, terming her a "sterling witness" whose evidence was absolutely trustworthy.
Case Title: Mohd. Yaqoob and another v. District Registrar/A.D.M. Fandr Bahraich and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
The Allahabad High Court has held that the registrar and Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act are not Court and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable to proceedings under the Registration Act.
Justice Irshad Ali held
“..the office of Registrar, Additional Registrar or the Sub Registrar may not be treated as a Court. Accordingly the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable in a proceeding under the Registration Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act categorically extends the power for extension of period beyond the date of limitation provided by the Limitation Act or statute to a Court and not to other authorities.”
Case title - Angad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court has held that a convicted prisoner can't be granted parole merely to arrange or fix the marriage of their children under the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007.
While denying relief to Ex-MLA Angad Yadav, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti also noted that, as per Rule 1(4)(c) of the 2007 Rules, a prisoner with pending criminal cases is statutorily barred from availing parole benefits.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union Of India And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
The Allahabad High Court has held that punishment under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if there is deliberate obstruction or delay in supplying information sought under the RTI Act. It cannot be imposed based on rushed or prejudged decisions which compromise statutory safeguards or rule of law.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko And Another vs. Anshul Jagannath 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Court has suo moto powers to extend the time limit for disciplinary proceedings fixed by an earlier Court to ensure that serious misconduct does not go unpunished.
Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others which was affirmed by the Apex Court in U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
Case Title: Km. Lakshmi And 10 Others Versus State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
In a case of leaked paper and cancelled examination, the Allahabad High Court has held that there is no indefeasible right to force the State to conclude the examination process when papers leaked may have benefited the candidates.
While dealing with cancellation of written examinations conducted by U.P. Education Service Selection Commission in which paper was leaked, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held
“a candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be permitted to compromise.”
Case Title: Bihari Lal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, opportunity of hearing is mandatory if the competent authority seeks to reject the application for cutting/ removing or disposing of fallen trees.
Perusing Section 5 of the Act which provides the procedure to fell and remove trees, the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,
“It is also open to the competent authority that in case he is not satisfied with the report made under Section 5 (1) of the Code, 2006, he may make further enquiry. However, the provision to Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1976 clearly provides that permission shall not be refused without affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicant.”
Case title - Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court cancelled the bail of a POCSO Accused who allegedly started harassing and threatening the minor victim after his release on bail, due to which she died by suicide.
Noting that prima facie the allegations under Section 108 BNS have been substantiated during the investigation, a bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh cancelled the bail of the accused, categorically observing that the accused deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail.
Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Can't Be Set Aside After Spouse's Death: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Smt. Geeta Rani And 2 Others Versus Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court has held that an ex-parte divorce decree cannot be set aside after spouse's death.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh relied on Smt. Yallawwa vs. Smt. Shantavva (1997) where the Supreme Court gave directions regarding maintainability of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree in the matrimonial case against a deceased spouse
Case Title: Smt. Geeta Devi and another Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to protect the possession of the allottee as long as the title of the property vests in the State. It held that the job of the SDO does not end at after allotment of initial possession but continues till the State has title over the property.
Case Title - Kafi Ahmed Khan vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court strongly deprecated the practice of public employers bypassing regular recruitment by continuously engaging staff through outsourcing agencies.
Observing that such a system provides wide "room for exploitation and unfairness", a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan directed the Bareilly Nagar Nigam to consider regularising a Computer Operator who has been working on an outsourced basis for over 13 years.
Preliminary Issue Can't Be Raised 18 Years After Framing Of Issues In Suit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Paras @ Ram Paras Versus Ram Charitra and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that preliminary issue in a suit cannot be raised 18 years after framing of issues in a trial.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Plea regarding maintainability of suit is required to be raised at the first instance in the pleading (written statement), then only such plea can be adjudicated by the trial court on its merit as preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.”
Bonafides Of Explanation For Condonation Of Delay Must Be Ascertained First: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia v. Rahul Sisodia 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that while delay with delay condonation, the Court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation furnished by the party seeking such condonation.
While dealing with an appeal, filed with a delay of 654 days, against a judgment declaring a marriage void, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,
“The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”
Absence Of Notice U/S 24 CPC Not Fatal To Transfer Unless Prejudice Shown: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha And 5 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 137
The Allahabad High Court has held that not issuing notice under Section 24 CPC before transferring a suit does not vitiate the transfer unless prejudice can be demonstrated by the party.
Section 24 CPC provides for transfer of suits, appeals or any other proceedings pending before the High Court or District Courts to another forum on application made by any of the parties or on its own motion. It provides that such transfer must be done after issuing notice ot the parties and after hearing them. Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. provides for return of plaint.
Case title - Hasina Khatoon vs State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court has categorically held that committing a person to a civil prison for default in paying maintenance to his wife or children does not absolve him of his legal liability to pay further monthly maintenance arrears.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri clarified that the doctrine of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC is entirely inapplicable to the execution of maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case title - Pradeep Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court rejected petitions filed by 9 individuals to quash the criminal proceedings pertaining to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Kanpur.
Describing the mass violence following the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a 'genocide' and a 'crime against humanity', the Court said that delay in recording witness statements and the non-availability of original police records cannot be grounds to quash the proceedings.
Case title - Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple in a case registered under the POCSO Act over the alleged sexual abuse of minors.
In a detailed 22-page order, a bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha questioned the 'unusual' conduct of the minor victims in confiding about the alleged offence in a stranger, the first informant (Ashutosh Brahmachari), rather than in their natural guardians.
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order granting maintenance to a minor girl under Section 125 CrPC, while first ordering a DNA test to ascertain her correct parentage, a plea raised earlier by her father (revisionist), but was rejected.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that in cases involving peculiar facts and circumstances, both the father and the daughter have every right to know the biological truth.
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is 'wrong' for any person to claim in secular India that a particular religion is the "only true religion", as doing so implies a 'disparagement' of other faiths and the same prima facie attracts Section 295A IPC.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed thus while dismissing a quashing petition filed by Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who is facing charges under Section 295A IPC [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs]
Case title - Archana Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Neeta Singh 2024, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed a plea filed seeking the quashing of a February 2026 order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow.
Case title - Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, even though police-recorded confessional statements can't be part of the charge-sheets, it does not prevent the police from relying on such statements to proceed in an ongoing investigation.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed so while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of one Kishan Yadav. The applicant is accused of committing the murder of a 20-year-old youth with diminished mental capacity in Gorakhpur.
Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her parents-in-law under the statutory provision of Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS.
Observing that the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of the said provision
Case title - Rizwana And 2 Other vs. The State Of U.P. And 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
The Allahabad High Court has observed that persons governed by Muslim personal law are not precluded from seeking custody of a minor under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X said that while personal law may guide the Court in determining the rights of parties; however, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the minor, which overrides all other considerations.
Case title - Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after an accused is summoned in a complaint case involving a non-bailable offence.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla expressed disagreement with a 2025 coordinate bench ruling in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is not maintainable upon the mere issuance of a summons as there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without a warrant.
Case title - In re vs Ashutosh Kumar Mishra 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court dropped criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who had accused a single judge of working under government pressure in open court.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay closed the matter after accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the advocate.
Case title - Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is common knowledge that a wife generally exaggerates her husband's income in maintenance proceedings, but such exaggerated statements do not automatically warrant the initiation of perjury proceedings against her under Section 340 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court's order rejecting his application to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC r/w Section 379 BNSS against his wife.
Case Title: Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of a Hindu minor's interest in the undivided joint family property, no guardian can be appointed to manage such interests. It held that the same will be taken care by the adult member of the family, as per Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal held
“it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian.”
Case Title: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
While holding that the mosque in question was illegally constructed on the Gram Sabah land which was recorded as 'Khalihan' in the revenue records, the Allahabad High Court removed penalty imposed under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the present mosque occupants as there was no material to link them to the construction of the mosque and did not have any title, right or interest in the property.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court has held that for seeking compensation due to death COVID-19, it is necessary to produce the test reports which prove that the deceased had COVID-19 or a death certificate which records that the deceased died due to COVID-19 infection.
While rejecting a claim for compensation for death due to COVID-19 allegedly contracted while on election duty, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad held that for award of compensation, “A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon.”
Case title - Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife continues even after his death, and the widow can claim maintenance from her father-in-law.
"It is well settled that a husband is obliged to maintain his wife. This position has emanated from situations, where the spouses have separated and the wife has sought for maintenance, either on the criminal side or under maintenance provisions in Hindu law. So much so, this obligation of the husband to maintain the wife attaches even after death of the husband in the law allowing the widow to claim maintenance from her father-in-law", a Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh observed.
Case title - Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a woman is the absolute owner of her 'streedhan' property and a legally wedded wife can't face a criminal trial for alleged breach of trust under Section 406 IPC for allegedly taking it away.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that properties given to a woman before, at the time of, or after marriage constitute her 'streedhan' and do not become the joint property of the husband and wife.
Case Title: Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court summoned the income tax returns of a woman's husband for ascertaining his income.
In proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the wife-applicant had filed an application seeking production of the income tax returns of the husband as he had disputed being an architect and claimed to be a labour. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 91 of CrPC for production of the returns on grounds that there was no need to summon such records.
Transfer Of Maintenance Proceedings From Family Court To Gram Nyayalaya Valid: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to the Gram Nyayalayas under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
Observing that the provisions, under which the order of the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya was passed, were not challenged, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid.”
Case Title: Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the accused is in judicial custody, he/she must be provided a legal counsel by the Trial Court for filing discharge application and if the accused refuses such counsel, then a hearing must be afforded on question of framing of issues with assistance of a legal counsel.
Referring to Sections 262 and 263 of BNSS, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held
“it becomes crystal clear that, on the one hand, the statute gives an opportunity to the accused to move an application for discharge within 60 days of supply of copies of documents and the court has also been prescribed a time limit of 60 days for framing of charge, which commences from the date of the first hearing on charge.”
NOMINAL INDEX
Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another v. Indra Mohan Sachdev 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Jagdamba Harijan Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Dayanand and 2 others Versus Mohan @ Ghure 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Union Of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive And Another vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Kishori Lal vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Amit Gupta And 5 Others vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mansoor Ansari vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
State of U.P. Thru.Prin./Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.Housing and Urban Planning Govt. U.P. Lko.and Anr vs Anil Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Vansh Nigam and another vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Sachin Kumar Versus Smt Nidhi Dohre And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Reena v. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Munazir Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Sukhnandan vs. Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Magghu Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt. ) Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Lalsa Devi Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Babloo Yadav @ Billa vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Alka Singhania Versus Smt. Shilpi Agarwal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Dalbir And 3 Others Versus Board Of Revenue Prayagraj And 18 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Kusum Mishra And Another Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Mohd. Faizan and 2 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Rameshwar Singh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Mohd. Yaqoob and another v. District Registrar/A.D.M. Fandr Bahraich and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Angad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union Of India And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko And Another vs. Anshul Jagannath 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Lakshmi And 10 Others Versus State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Bihari Lal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Geeta Rani And 2 Others Versus Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
. Geeta Devi and another Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Kafi Ahmed Khan vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Paras @ Ram Paras Versus Ram Charitra and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia v. Rahul Sisodia 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Hasina Khatoon vs State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Pradeep Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 141
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Archana Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Rizwana And 2 Other vs. The State Of U.P. And 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
In re vs Ashutosh Kumar Mishra 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158