ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEKAllahabad High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Cost To Woman Illegally Dispossessed Of Her Property; Calls For Disciplinary Action Against Civil JudgeCase Title: Soni v. State of U.P. and 7 others[WRIT – C No. - 28263 of 2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 8The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted Rs. 1 lakh cost to a lady and her three minor children who were...
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Soni v. State of U.P. and 7 others[WRIT – C No. - 28263 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted Rs. 1 lakh cost to a lady and her three minor children who were illegally dispossessed of their property. In addition to directing restoration of possession, the Court directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action against the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent, dispossessing the petitioner of her property without any opportunity of hearing.
Case title - Shadab vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the mandatory audio-video recording of searches and seizures as prescribed under Section 105 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
While granting bail to an accused in a theft case involving the alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 105 BNSS creates a doubt over the entire prosecution story.
Case title - Pravesh Singh Tomar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court recently suspended the conviction and sentence of a government servant (Lekhpal) accused of sexually assaulting his 16-year-old daughter, observing that his right to earn his livelihood for survival cannot be curtailed merely because of his implication in the case.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I also noted that the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is a remote possibility of it being heard in the near future due to the heavy backlog of cases.
Case title - Monika vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court has held that the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against an accused does not create a total embargo on considering his/her application for anticipatory bail.
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in the case of Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889, a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by one Monika, a nurse by profession.
Case title - Mohd.Irfan Siddiqui vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in 2020 that sought a directive for the Uttar Pradesh Police to upload every charge sheet on its official website within 24 hours of concluding an investigation.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52, wherein it was observed that copies of charge sheets aren't public documents and cannot be put online.
Case title - Man Singh .vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on the evidence recorded during trial and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, as they don't constitute evidence.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to summon the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of a deceased woman as additional accused in a dowry death case.
Case title - Ful Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State authorities to transfer a government servant, as it noted that the transfer policy issued by the government is only for guidance and cannot be enforced through a court of law.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that the transfer and posting of government servants lie in the exclusive domain of the State Government and the courts cannot issue directions to transfer a particular employee to a specific place.
Case title - Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a criminal appeal can't be dismissed merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused and that in such circumstances, the court is obliged to appoint an amicus curiae and decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it for non-representation.
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid observed that the dismissal of a criminal appeal in default on account of the absence of counsel for the appellant-accused is against the mandate of Section 425 BNSS (Section 384 CrPC).
Case title - Irfan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has laid down specific procedural guidelines that the State Government must follow before removing a President of a Nagar Palika Parishad as per Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act, 1916.
The Court ruled that such removal cannot be affected merely based on a preliminary inquiry and a show-cause notice and rather, a “full-fledged inquiry” involving the framing of charges and cross-examination of witnesses is mandatory.
Case title - Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills, as this can't lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also observed that it is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. The Court added that the wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.