Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022
NOMINAL INDEX Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438 State of U.P. v. Ram Autar 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439 Dr. Meraj Ali And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 440 State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441 Rajiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022...
NOMINAL INDEX
Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438
State of U.P. v. Ram Autar 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Dr. Meraj Ali And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 440
State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Rajiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Anurag Dubey (Second bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Rudra Dutt Sharma Alias Rudra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Rahul Pandey v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case title - Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court observed that while denying or granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, much reliance can not be placed upon a social background or a social investigation report as they are usually prepared without proper research.
"...a social background or a social investigation report may have a very limited purpose to serve. The findings cannot be solely based on such reports, which are more than often very superficial and unscientific. It is common knowledge that social investigation reports are usually prepared in printed formats without proper research. In my opinion, not much reliance can be placed on such half-baked reports," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma remarked as it denied bail to a juvenile accused of committing murder while he was just over 13 years old.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Ram Autar [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2683 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Allowing a government appeal, the Allahabad High Court awarded life imprisonment to a man who had committed a murder in the year 1982. With this, the High Court set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of the accused by the Special Judge, Fatehpur in the year 1983.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar emphasized that merely after a lapse of sufficient time coupled with other factors, namely, the age of the accused and his resettlement, if any post acquittal by the trial court, cannot be a ground to bestow any benefit so as to wipe away the aftermath of commission of the crime.
Case title - Dr. Meraj Ali And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11924 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court quashed a 24-year-old criminal case as it stressed that a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also expressed its anguish that unnecessary and baseless criminal proceedings are pending for the last many years, as it noted that in the instant case, the criminal proceedings are pending 9 since 1998, i.e., for about 24 years and it has reached only up to the stage of discharge application.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 780 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court sentenced former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari to 7 years in jail after holding him guilty of intimidating a Jailer who was performing public duty by abusing him and pointing a revolver/pistol toward him, and threatening to kill him in the year 2003
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of Ansari by the Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in the year 2020 as it noted that the approach of the trial Court in evaluating the evidence before it was palpably erroneous.
Case title - Rajiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION 482 No. - 4392 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 442
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case registered against a man as it noted that the accused man and victim-wife (who was a minor at the time of the incident) married the applicant/accused out of her own sweet will and is living a happy married life with him.
"To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in the present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, the husband is taking care of his wife and in case, the husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, the wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare," the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed as it quashed the rape-POCSO case against the accused.
Case title - Anurag Dubey (Second bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1327 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court observed that the second anticipatory bail application may be considered by the Court if the reason for rejecting the first bail application has been washed off.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail to one Anurag Dubey who has been booked under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 IPC. His first bail plea had been rejected by the Court in view of the fact that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him declaring him an absconder.
Case title - Rudra Dutt Sharma Alias Rudra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8819 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court disapproved of the approach of the sessions court in rejecting the bail application without application of judicial mind and in a routine manner in petty issues.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed that it is a very sorry state of affairs that in petty issues bail applications, the session courts deny bail to the accused, prompting them to move to the High Court for relief.
Case title - Rahul Pandey v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 14614 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Stressing that appearing in the examination is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad High Court permitted a railway exam candidate (who is 80% handicapped) to take an attendant to the examination centre.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan allowed the writ plea of the candidate (Rahul Pandey) by directing the competent Railway Authorities to allow him to carry one attendant, who would take him to the examination centre and to the examination room.
Other updates from the High Court
Case title - Tayyaba Begum v. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court witnessed an interesting incident when a woman advocate showed up late for a court hearing due to traffic jam in Prayagraj prompting the court to order the SP Traffic of Prayagraj to personally present himself.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed asked the SP Traffic to come up with appropriate plan to manage the traffic and parking around the High Court for free ingress and outgress.