NOMINAL INDEX
Neeraj And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 305
North Central Zone Insurance Employees vs Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 306
S.Vignesh Shishir vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 21 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 307
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Planning Deptt. Lko. vs Rashmi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 308
Sandeep Baisoya vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 309
M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Mr. Om Prakash Verma vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager (N.E.R.) Gorakhpur U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 310
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 311
Megha Raikwar vs State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 312
Shiv Gupta vs U.O.I. Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Defence,Dhq Po, New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 313
Love Yadav vs Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Near Bal Bhawan New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 314
Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315
M/S Uttam Lifestyle Hotels Private Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 317
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Matambar Mishra vs The State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Chander Pal Singh v State of UP and others
Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Yatish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Manish vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Umesh Mali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Hareram Chaudhary vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (dead) and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Lala And Another vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Kuntesh vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Lila and another vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329
Chandra Shekhar Nishad vs Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt.New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330
M/S Shri Rk Cold Storage And General Mils And 3 Others vs State of UP and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Sharif Ahmad and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Suresh Shah Sisodiya v. Jai Prakash Yadav 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Rakesh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Vikas Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Alok Tiwari vs State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Dhanendra Kumar Jain, Secretary, C/M Digambar Jain College vs Sunil Kumar Jain And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Kamlesh Singh v. Pushpendra Singh Kama and 17 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 340
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Neeraj And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 305
In a significant verdict passed last week, the Allahabad High Court has held that once a competent Court takes cognizance on the charge sheet, an accused cannot maintain a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest or the initial remand order passed under Section 167(2) CrPC/187(2) BNSS.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi reasoned that an initial remand order remains operative only during the investigation stage, as it naturally loses its significance once cognizance is taken, as the order of cognisance stands on a "higher judicial footing".
LIC Employees Can Be Engaged As Enumerators & Supervisors For Census Duties: Allahabad High Court
Case title - North Central Zone Insurance Employees vs Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 306
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 306
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) can legally be engaged as 'Enumerators' and 'Supervisors' for census duties.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak thus dismissed a petition moved by 'North Central Zone Insurance Employees', an association of Class III and Class IV employees of the LIC, challenging the entrustment of census duties upon them
Case title - S.Vignesh Shishir vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 21 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 307
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 307
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) declined to entertain a criminal public interest litigation seeking a deep and pervasive inquiry by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the activities of 'Cockroach Janata Party' and its founder Abhijit Dipke.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the petitioner (S. Vignesh Shishir), a Karnataka BJP Worker, is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and he should have first approached the Karnataka High Court.
Case title - State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Planning Deptt. Lko. vs Rashmi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 308
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 308
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government seeking restoration of the disciplinary punishment imposed on a senior government officer over an alleged Facebook post related to the 2018 Kasganj Violence.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai upheld the order passed by the UP Public Service Tribunal that quashed the punishment order against Rashmi Varun (Respondent), a Deputy Director in the Economic and Statistics Division.
Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest Has Become Routine Practice: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Sandeep Baisoya vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 309
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 309
The Allahabad High Court observed that it has become "routine practice" not to supply the grounds of arrest and not to prepare a disclosure memo at the police station, in compliance with the Supreme Court directives.
Taking note of these violations, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal granted bail to a Murder Accused (Sandeep Baisoya) who has been in jail since January 13.
Case Title: M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Mr. Om Prakash Verma vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager (N.E.R.) Gorakhpur U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 310
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that an inadequacy in stamp duty on a bank guarantee is merely a 'lacuna' and a 'curable defect', and the same cannot be used to eliminate a bidder.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary consequently quashed the financial bid tabulation prepared by the respondent (North Eastern Railway), noting that it had rejected the petitioner's (M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.) technical bid on this 'flimsy' ground.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 311
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has urged the UP Chief Minister to recognize that the time has come to hold senior Bureaucrats and top administrative heads accountable, and even criminally liable, for the lapses of their departments or subordinates.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the State must adopt a doctrine of "superior responsibility", under which the senior officers in an administrative hierarchy are held accountable.
Case title - Megha Raikwar vs State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 312
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 312
In an unprecedented order, the Allahabad High Court referred the conduct of Senior IAS Officer Sanjay Prasad to the Dept of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the assessment of his suitability for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
The stern order was passed by a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, who took exception to the deliberate and calculated attempt of Prasad, serving as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of UP, to undermine the authority of the Court.
Case Title: Shiv Gupta vs U.O.I. Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Defence,Dhq Po, New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 313
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 313
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Lucknow authorities to carry out immediate repair and renovation work at a public crematorium after instances of desecration of human remains by stray animals were highlighted in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea.
Stressing that the "right to live with human dignity extends beyond death", a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary added that each individual must be given a respectful funeral and due honour.
Case Title: Love Yadav vs Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Near Bal Bhawan New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 314
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 314
The Allahabad High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to manually verify the OMR answer sheet of a candidate who was declared 'failed' in the All-India Bar Examination-XX due to an inadvertent omission in filling his question booklet code.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary intervened in the writ plea filed by candidate Love Yadav after the BCI's counsel admitted that, upon a manual check, it had been found that the petitioner had secured passing marks.
Case title - Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a rape and murder case with a "heavy heart and great pain" due to the lack of proper scientific evidence.
Expressing serious concerns over the state's Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) infrastructure, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:
"…outdated machine as well as incomplete infrastructure in FSL is the main reason for non-generation of DNA profile and no one can be blamed except the State Government who has many other issues to consider, apart from the issue of providing basic infrastructure to FSL”.
Case Title: M/S Uttam Lifestyle Hotels Private Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court expressed shock over levy of interest by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation for a period of 8 years for which time extension application filed by the allotee was kept pending by it.
Case title - Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 317
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 317
While quashing criminal proceedings initiated against 3 family members over a civil dispute, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday delivered a scathing reprimand to the Uttar Pradesh Police for the targeted use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar also flagged how the encounter killings and selective crackdowns against individuals deemed inconvenient have periodically attracted judicial notice.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 318
The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected the bail application of Ittefaq Minnat Council (IMC) President Tauqeer Raja Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly riot violence.
Considering the allegations against him, the Court noted that Khan was the "main conspirator" who incited a volatile crowd in the name of Prophet Mohammad, fully aware that they might resort to arson, rioting and attacks on police personnel, while damaging public property.
"Communal harmony forms the bedrock of a democratic nation such as India. Permitting individuals like the applicant to incite divisions on religious grounds for political gain threatens to unravel the social fabric of the country and poses a serious risk to national integrity", a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked.
Case Title: Matambar Mishra vs The State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court observed that police officials persistently violate citizens' rights, believing that their abuses will simply go unnoticed.
The Court added that cops think that, out of a thousand violations or more, hardly one citizen would come forward to enforce their rights and hold them accountable.
Case : Chander Pal Singh v State of UP and others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 320
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the state government to pay ₹25,000 per day to such citizens who are illegally detained beyond 24 hours under the preventive detention provisions of BNSS over alleged breach of peace.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi further directed that this compensation must be recovered directly from the salaries of the erring Magistrates or police officials.
Case title - Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Coming down heavily on the abuse of the preventive detention provision under the BNSS, the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed that magisterial powers granted to Police Commissioners in districts like Prayagraj and Ghaziabad are being “misused to the hilt”.
Terming the situation as "a shocking state of affairs", a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi directed the UP Government to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation to a man who was illegally jailed for 8 days under the preventive detention provisions of the BNSS over an alleged breach of peace.
Case Title: Yatish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has held that date of birth recorded in the service records shall deemed to be correct if the employee has not passed High School or equivalent exams.
Referring to Rule 2 of U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held
“Law in regard to determination of correct date of birth or age is well settled that provisions of Rule 2 of Rules 1974, shall be applicable that since at the time of entry into service, the petitioner has not passed High School or equivalent examination, therefore, date of birth recorded in service book at the time of entry shall be deemed to be correct date of birth.”
Case title - Manish vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 323
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that an accused cannot escape a murder conviction merely because the victim died of septicemia several days after receiving intentional injuries which are likely to cause death or are imminently dangerous to life.
The Court added that the accused's act would squarely fall under Section 300 IPC, provided that the other requirements, such as knowledge and intent on the part of the accused, are satisfied.
Case title - Umesh Mali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Interpreting Section 483 (2) BNSS, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bail application in certain cases of rape involving minors can be heard even if the informant or complainant/victim is absent, provided they were duly informed about the proceedings [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 324].
The Court stressed that the statutory mandate is to provide the complainant an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter it is at the complainant's "sweet will" whether to appear before the Court at the time of hearing of the bail application.
Case title - Hareram Chaudhary vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court observed that the prosecution's case cannot be thrown out on the ground that the motive is not proved or that there is some doubt about it, if the occurrence is proved by ocular evidence.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad thus upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to appellant-Hareram Chaudhary for the cold-blooded midnight assassination of a prominent ashram head in Barabanki in the year 2015.
Case title - Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (dead) and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man (sole surviving appellant) sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with a 1986 murder case, as it observed that the theory of "last seen together" is a "very weak kind of evidence" and it alone cannot sustain a conviction.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani added that the courts must ensure that the 'circumstantial evidence' and chain of circumstances are complete in a manner that points only to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for a hypothesis of the accused's innocence.
Case title - Lala And Another vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 327
In a significant order on the scope of inquiries by a Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court has held that material facts omitted from the protest petition cannot ordinarily be supplied later through oral statements of the complainant and witnesses.
The bench added that the introduction of such facts for the first time during the inquiry/examination by a magistrate amounts to a material improvement and raises "serious doubts" regarding the genuineness of the accusation.
Case title - Kuntesh vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who spent over 9 years in jail on the allegations of committing rape and offences under the POCSO Act against an 8-year-old girl.
Considering the inconsistencies and improvements in the minor victim's testimony, the conduct of her father and the absence of corroborative medical evidence, a Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside a 2019 judgment of the trial Court that had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
Case title - Lila and another vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life imprisonment of a man convicted of a brutal daylight murder in 1998, as it clarified that the testimony of a credible eyewitness cannot be discarded merely because they did not sign the inquest report and other police papers, including spot recovery memos.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II added that there is "absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness".
Case title - Chandra Shekhar Nishad vs Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt.New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court rejected a petition seeking a direction to treat the communities of Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah and Bind as synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar, which is already a notified Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh.
A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai clarified that neither State Governments nor courts have the power to alter, vary, or identify 'synonyms' for existing Scheduled Caste entries.
Case title - M/S Shri Rk Cold Storage And General Mils And 3 Others vs State of UP and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High Court has refused to restrain the construction of the Uttar Pradesh Government's ambitious '24 Kosi Parikrama Marg' in Sambhal, terming it an "important public project" done in accordance with the policy of the Government.
For context, the state government recently approved the project for the new construction, widening, and strengthening of the 24 Kosi Vansh Gopal Teerth Parikrama Marg under its charitable scheme for the financial year 2025-26 to ensure convenient transit for devotees.
Case Title: Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that sexual harassment complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 cannot be rejected at threshold due to delay, without specific consideration of reasons.
Case Title: Sharif Ahmad and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental right to freedom of religion, it doesn't entitle a community to use a particular road for the performance of religious rites. [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333]
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar added that it is the civil and police administration that is responsible for earmarking routes for processions involving a multitude of people.
Case Title: Suresh Shah Sisodiya v. Jai Prakash Yadav 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not mandatory for the Small Causes Court to return the plaint on title dispute but where substantial issues are found to be involved, then the plaint must be returned to be placed before the regular court of competent jurisdiction.
Referring to Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“While Section 23 is couched in discretionary terms and does not render return of the plaint mandatory in every case, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and upon sound principles. Where the dispute of title is bona fide, substantial and incapable of summary adjudication, it would be a proper and prudent exercise of jurisdiction for the Court of Small Causes to return the plaint for presentation before the competent civil court rather than proceed to determine the controversy within the confines of its limited summary jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Rakesh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Clarifying that Rape is a 'legal term', not a 'medical term', the Allahabad High Court observed that if the survivor's hymen was "old torn", an accused cannot be granted the benefit of doubt solely on this ground, provided the statement of the victim regarding committing rape is "wholly reliable".
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that a hymen may be torn due to different factors such as sports, cycling, gymnastics, horse-riding, extraneous physical labour, or accidental injury, etc.
Case Title: Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336
The Allahabad High Court observed that allotment of a residential house to a woman under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood, disentitling her from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also added that a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earning a meagre income.
Case title - Vikas Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC merely because her parents support her financially during times of distress.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad added that the income of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the income of the wife, and parental assistance is not a substitute for the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.
Case title - Alok Tiwari vs State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 338
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere fact that a wife is educated cannot disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when there is no evidence that she is actually earning sufficient income.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad further observed that the pension or properties of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the independent income of the wife and does not end the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife.
Case title - Dhanendra Kumar Jain, Secretary, C/M Digambar Jain College vs Sunil Kumar Jain And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable against an order merely directing an alleged contemnor to appear and explain why contempt charges should not be framed.
The Court, however, clarified that the aggrieved party is not left remediless and may avail the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal.
Case Title: Kamlesh Singh v. Pushpendra Singh Kama and 17 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 340
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 340
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of limitation for execution of a partition decree is independent of it's engrossment. It also held that stamp duty on engrossment of the partition decree is different and operates in a different field from court fees payable on execution or appellate proceedings.
“As to when would such right to apply for engrossment of a final decree on stamp paper would arise, the Court holds that since executability/enforceability of a partition decree is not dependent upon its engrossment on stamp papers and wherever the decree attains finality, the period of limitation for its execution starts independent of engrossment. The limitation for execution being 12 years as per Article 136, if any party moves an application at any time during subsistence of period of limitation for execution, the application would remain within