- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Allahabad High Court
- /
- Allahabad High Court Annual...
Allahabad High Court Annual Criminal Law Digest 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 Jan 2024 4:11 PM GMT
LiveLaw brings to you Allahabad High Court Digest on Criminal law cases from the year 2023.“Be Careful In Future”: Allahabad High Court Takes Exception To Trial Court's Judgment Mentioning Alleged Rape Victim's Name Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3 The Allahabad High Court...
LiveLaw brings to you Allahabad High Court Digest on Criminal law cases from the year 2023.
Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The Allahabad High Court took exception to a judgment delivered by Sessions Court, Kanpur Dehat in which the rape victim's name was mentioned and said that the Judge should be careful while dealing with such matters in the future.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal said it is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding.
“Before parting with the case it is necessary to mention that despite Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts of not disclosing the name of the victim of offence of rape, the trial court has specifically mentioned the name of the victim/prosecutrix while recording her evidence in court and at various places in the impugned judgment. Despite various reminders by the Apex Court about it, the trial court appears to have been ignorant about it,” the Court remarked in its order.
Case title - Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7478 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a police constable who was convicted in 2018 by a trial Court for allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor girl, after finding that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also observed that there were major improvements in the testimony of the victim and hence, the trial court was not justified in returning the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant.
Case title - Pintu Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37170 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of raping a physically challenged woman on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, refusing to marry her.
“Such criminal tendencies growing in the society must be nipped in the bud to convey a strong message to the culprits in the society,” the bench of Justice Saroj Yadav observed as it called the alleged offence, a 'serious' one.
Case title - Vaibhav Kumar Pandey And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 9 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which prayed for a declaration that a rape accused may seek 'Default Bail', in case a chargesheet is not filed against him within two months of lodging of FIR.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar dismissed the plea for being 'misconceived' as it noted that such a prayer need not be addressed in a public interest litigation.
Case title - Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26037 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate's order, rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CrPC or converting it into a complaint, is not an interlocutory order and the aggrieved party can prefer revision against it under Section 397 CrPC.
The court also added that such an order of the magistrate cannot be challenged in a plea moved under Section 482 CrPC as an alternative remedy of filing a revision under section 397 CrPC is available to the aggrieved party.
Case title - Kailash vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to two men for killing a man with a country-made pistol in the year 2005.
The court said that the act of the accused carrying a firearm weapon at the place of occurrence was itself indicative of their intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also noted that the nature of the injury and the body part, where the injuries were sustained, indicated that the Accused-Appellant fired on the deceased with the intention of causing injury as is likely to cause death or the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Case title - Mokhtar Ansari vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11290 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari in connection with a case under UP Gangster Act registered in 2020 while considering the allegations and his rich criminal horoscope.
Observing that if Ansari is not a gangster, then in this country no one can be said to be a gangster, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that he and his gang members accumulated enormous wealth by striking fear and terror in the minds and hearts of the people and his freedom would be in peril of the law-abiding citizens of this Court.
Case title - Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29318 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court has observed that at the stage of bail, it is only to be seen whether provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been prima facie complied with or not and it cannot be precisely ascertained whether compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been substantially made or not, as the same can only be ascertained during the trial.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while dealing with the plea of an NDPS Accused seeking bail on the ground that at the time of search and recovery, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
Case title - Manjeet Alias Pintoo vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59616 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court directed the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to ensure compliance of its 2022 order in the case of 'Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 435' wherein it issued several positive directions for the State regarding providing access to legal aid to undertrials.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was prompted to pass this order while hearing the bail plea of a kidnapping accused who remained in jail as he did not have access to legal aid as he belong to the economically poor strata of society.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 161 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court has directed the special NIA Court in Lucknow, trying the UAPA Case against Kerala Based journalist Siddique Kappan, to decide his discharge plea AFRESH after giving an opportunity of hearing to his counsel. With this, the Court also quashed the order of the NIA court's framing charges against him.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order on Monday after observing that the Trial Court had, while proceeding to frame charges, neither accepted, nor rejected Kappan's discharge plea, and prima facie no opportunity for a hearing was granted to his counsel.
Case title - Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23675 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings pending for 18 years against a man accused of committing electricity theft by terming the inordinate delay in the trial as oppressive and unwarranted.
Holding that the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused-Madan Mohan Saxena had been violated in the case, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain quashed the chargesheet and entire case proceedings under Section 39/49B of the Electricity Act pending against him.
Case title - Nizamuddin Khan vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1461 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Nizamuddin Khan, the State President of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) in the UAPA case over his alleged connection with the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) and involvement in anti-national activities.
Khan, who has been booked under sections 295A, 109, 120B, 201 I.P.C., and section 13 of UAPA, was arrested on September 27, 2022, from Aligarh allegedly with objectionable material and unconstitutional literature.
Case title - Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 216 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a right that may be denied only in exceptional circumstances or in such circumstances where the order sheet reveals that the other side/ party is habitual in seeking adjournments for one reason or another.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while setting aside an order of the trial court wherein the opportunity of cross-examination for the applicant (accused in a Gangster Act Case) of a prosecution witness was closed despite the fact that the applicant had moved an adjournment application on the ground that his counsel was busy in some other court.
Case title - Mohd. Aslam vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a person convicted in the year 2004 for allegedly killing 4 persons of a family by mixing poison in their meat as it did not find credible evidence against him.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav acquitted one Mohd. Aslam as it noted that though it was painful that four persons of the family were done to death by poisoning, however, the real culprit of the crime could not be brought to book.
Case title - Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 137 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court has observed that for the purposes of constituting an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done, and not the injuries.
The bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed thus while upholding an order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the plea of discharge filed by a man accused of committing offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
"Section 308 IPC consists of two parts. The first is related to no-injury cases while the second part deals with where the hurt is caused. So what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done and not the injuries," the Court observed.
Allahabad High Court Entertains And Allows A Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed On Fresh Grounds
Case title - Rajnish Chaurasia Alias Rajnesh Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 31 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court entertained and allowed a second anticipatory bail plea filed on fresh grounds.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar granted anticipatory bail [till the filing of police report u/s 173(2) CrPC] to one Rajnish Chaurasia who has been accused of inter alia causing hurt to the first informant in May 2022.
With this, the bench rejected the contention raised by AGA that the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant was not maintainable on the ground that the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493, ruled that a second and successive anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
Case title - Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Application U/S 482 No.25838 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Hisab-Kitab Remark case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that considering the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting by Ansari, at this stage it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.
"The scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and it should be exercised in exceptional cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose any offence. Whether the offence under Section 153-A IPC gets attracted or not, would depend on the quality of evidence led by the prosecution during the trial. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings or the charge sheet," the Court's order reads.
Case title - Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu vs. Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7522 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet in each and every case where an FIR has been lodged alleging the commission of offence under the SC/ST Act 1989.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori further clarified that Section 4(2)(e) of the 1989 Act and Rule 7(2) of the SC-ST Act Rules 1995 only enjoins upon the IO to file such a charge sheet where, based on evidence collected during the investigation, the offence is made out.
Case Title - Swami Chinmiyanand Saraswati Pupil vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11900 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Union minister Chinmayanand Saraswati in connection with the Shahjahanpur Rape Case 2011 after the state did not oppose his bail plea.
In fact, the Counsel for the complainant filed a counter affidavit stating that the complainant has no objection, whatsoever, if Chinmayanand is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Case title - Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of a Session Court awarding life imprisonment to 2 persons after finding them guilty of committing gang rape against a 7-year-old girl in the year 2010.
Refusing to reduce the sentence awarded to the convicts, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma observed thus:
“It is not a case of rape by juvenile, a single accused with a mature lady or with a girl who is on the verge of attaining the age of puberty or majority. The victim was not knowing even the nature of the offence. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, age of the victim, age of the accused persons and that it is a case of gang rape with a little girl, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each.”
Case title - Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others vs. State of U.P. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2704 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court allowed an application of the Public Prosecutor's application for 'Withdrawal From Prosecution' as provided under Section 321 CrPC against the lone Bahujan Samaj Party MLA in Uttar Pradesh, Umashankar Singh in connection with a cheating case.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the concerned Public Prosecutor had not only considered the facts and circumstances of the case but also considered the evidence in a fair detailed manner.
Case title - Suneeta Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39234 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court observed that a woman can not commit the offence of rape but if she facilitates the act of rape with a group of people then she may be prosecuted for 'Gang Rape' under Section 376D Of IPC in view of the amended provisions.
Perusing the provisions of Section 375 and 376 IPC (as amended by Act 13 of 2013 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the argument that a woman cannot be prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence of gang rape.
Case title - Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assistant Director [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.7719 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of the alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razaq Peediyakkal in the PMLA Case wherein he has been accused of collecting and laundering funds over Rs. 20 crores for the PFI.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan rejected the bail plea today.
It may be noted that the ED raided Peediyakkal's residence as well as the Munnar Villa Vista Project (MVVP) site in December 2021 wherein it found several discrepancies in the receipt of suspicious foreign funds from abroad and also in cash expenses incurred and recorded in the books of accounts.
Case title - Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11542 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court observed that a child in conflict with the law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can not file an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
"In case, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed to hold the field in the matters of juvenile, the aim and object of the Act shall be defeated. The interpretation of law cannot be devised in a way, so as to put a hurdle in the broader and solemn aim which is sought to be achieved by this enactment," the Court said.
Case title - Salman Khurshid vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38523 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Congress leader Salman Khurshid for allegedly making an indecent remark against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath.
During the electioneering for Lok Sabha Election 2019, while referring to Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Congress leader Khurshid had allegedly said: “Rishte me ham unke Baap Lagte hai".
Case title - Anees vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23624 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court observed that at the stage of adjudicating a bail application, it cannot delve into the quality or quantity of evidence and it can only consider whether the delinquent appears to have committed the crime and whether he is entitled to bail or not.
With this, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to a man who has been accused of killing his wife pursuant to setting her on fire. It was argued by the defence counsel that many prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution.
Case title - Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4227 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by one Parvez Parwaz challenging a Trial Court's order rejecting his protest plea against closure report in the alleged 2007 hate speech case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Petitioner (Parwaz) is a busy body who has been fighting the case since 2007 and that his resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation.
"The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the bench remarked.
Case title - Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Observing that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to two men accused of committing gang rape against a married woman while stressing that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has to be considered at the time of adjudicating bail plea.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further added that much water has flown down the Ganges since the Apex Court's opined in a 1983 case (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat) that no girl would foist a false case of sexual assault against any person to avoid being maligned in the non-permissive Indian society.
Case title - Govind Prakash Pandey vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. India Represented By Its Assistant Director Lko.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), observing that he was not arrested by the investigating agency under Section 19 of the PMLA and therefore rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA can't be made applicable.
The regular bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA are not satisfied.
Case title - Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18536 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 80
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that it is impermissible to dismiss bail applications for non-prosecution on account of the absence of counsel as it is violative of the fundamental rights of the prisoners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court added that in such cases, an amicus curiae should be appointed to represent the applicant/prisoner and the matter be heard on merits.
Case title - Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 1743 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Stressing the importance of cows in Hinduism and the need to stop the practice of killing them, the Allahabad High Court hoped that the Central Government would take an appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a 'protected national animal'.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed also observed that since India is a secular country where we must have respect for all religions and in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence, and therefore, it should be protected and venerated.
Case title - Kalika Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33349 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while considering the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, the Court cannot examine any defence of the accused which has yet to be placed before the subordinate Court.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus while refusing to entertain the plea filed by one Kalika Pratap Singh seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly abetting the suicide of a woman.
Case title - Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8338 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the subordinate court issuing a summons to an accused for facing the trial of offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as it noted that the alleged act of abusing the victim took place inside the car, and not in public view.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh relied upon the Uttarakhand High Court's ruling in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttrakhand and another 2020 AIR (SC) 5584, wherein it was held that if the alleged incident of abuse took place inside the car, which is not in public view, thus, no offence under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) can be said to be made out.
Case Title- X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori of Allahabad High Court granted bail under section 12 of JJ Act (Juvenile Justice Act,2015) to a person, who was at the time of incident juvenile and accused of heinous offence. The court observed that the Appellate Court and JJ Board (Juvenile Justice Board) have failed to properly appreciate the mandatory provision of section 12 of JJ Act.
The bail application of the accused person charged under Sections 302,201,34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) was rejected by the JJ Board on the ground of gravity of the offence and the reason that there appears a reasonable ground for believing that the guardian of the juvenile has no effective control over the accused person and there is a possibility of re-occurrence of the offence after his release.
Case title - Ramu Mallah vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10996 of 2020]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Terming 'Mukhtar Ansari Gang' as the most dreaded criminal gang of India, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to an alleged Ansari gang member in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus while denying bail to a murder accused (one Ramu Mallah), who is an alleged member of the Mukhtar Ansari Gang.
Before the Court, Ramu Mallah's bail plea was opposed by the government while arguing that he is a member of the Mukhtar Ansari gang and that an FIR has been registered against Ramu Mallah under serious sections including murder, Arms Act.
Case title - Purushottam Chaudhary vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. The Superintendent Of Police Cbi/Acb Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1974 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court explained as to when a Proclamation under Sections 82, 83 CrPC be issued against a person to compel him to appear before the court be issued. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan decoded the procedure as laid down in the CrPC for the issuance of a proclamation, summons, and arrest warrants
Untangling the intricate procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the issuance of proclamation, the bench set aside a Non Bailable warrant and issuance of process under Section 82 of the CrPC against one Purushottam Chaudhary pertaining to a corruption case.
Case title - Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2674 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Granting bail to the 'Hathras Conspiracy' case accused Activist Atikur Rehman, the Allahabad High Court noted that the state could not show any financial gain received by him barring a sum of Rs. 5K, which was received in his bank account.
UAPA Activist Rehman, who was arrested in October 2020 along with journalist Siddique Kappan and two others, on his way to Hathras to meet the family members of a gang rape and murder victim, has been in jail since October 2020.
Case title - Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8514 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court observed that the prosecution in heinous offences such as rape and molestation of minors, which are punishable under the POCSO Act can't be quashed based on the compromise between the victim and the accused.
The Court also opined that the endeavour of the Court in a matter involving such offence is to determine the truth of the allegations and that the purpose is not to persecute the accused nor is it to let him off, because his relations with the complainant have taken a happier turn.
Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3794 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to issue directions orders to the Chief Medical Officers of the state regarding the preparation of postmortem reports or injury reports in typed format, which is legible.
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh issued this direction while granting bail to one Vishwanath, who has been accused of assaulting a victim, which resulted in his death. Pursuant to which, he was booked under Sections 323,504,506,304 IPC.
Case title - Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2613 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned the Trial Court against putting onerous surety conditions in bail matters which have no connection with the socio-economic status of the prisoner as it noted that the same would negate the order granting bail, and undermine the fundamental right of liberty of the prisoner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Stressing that the Constitution of India does not put a price tag on liberty, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot asserted that the purpose of sureties is dissuasive in intent, but unrealistic surety demands are punitive in effect.
Case title - Mohammad Tariq Qashmi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 605 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Mohammad Tariq Qashmi who was arrested in december 2007 on the allegation of possessing 1.25 Kg of RDX and three detonators. Qashmi is also an accused in 2007 serial blasts case that targeted courts in Lucknow, Banaras and Faizabad districts of the state.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav ordered his release on bail as it took note of the fact that the aspect of recovery of explosive substance requires consideration and that he has already served out the sentence for about 16 years.
Case title - Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2941 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court observed the quashing of a Rape case or cases POCSO Act on the basis of the compromise entered between the accused and the victim is legally impermissible.
The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while it refused to quash a 9 year old rape case filed by the victim against the accused on the ground that the matter had been compromised between the parties.
Case title - Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10924 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Today, the Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside a 2019 order of the State Government by which a convict, who was granted a life imprisonment sentence in two criminal cases, was granted remission.
Observing that the convict (Man Singh) was not entitled to remission of the sentence as his case was covered by prohibition no. (x) of the State Government's remission policy, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Surendra Singh-I directed the convict to surrender within 30 days and to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36921 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that violence in one form or the other is not a sine qua non for a group of persons to qualify as a 'gang' under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Perusing Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be achieved through the practice of violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise.
Case title - Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19835 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court held that if an injury has been caused in the nature of a hole in the eardrum and if the same does not cause a hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity, then such an injury doesn't amount to 'grievous hurt' as per Section 320 (thirdly) of IPC.
The Court further observed that for such an act of inflicting injury (causing a hole in the eardrum) to fall under the 'grievous hurt' category, it has to be shown by way of medical evidence that there was a permanent privation of the hearing of ear or hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity.
Case title - Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11043 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court held that an order issuing a summons to an accused for an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be challenged by way of filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi held so while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 589 and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 wherein the Top Court had held that criminal proceedings arising out of SC/ST Act can be quashed invoking powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
Case Title - Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1399 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice and to insist on corroboration of her testimony amounts to an insult to womanhood.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra further observed that an accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of a rape victim, without any further corroboration, provided that the evidence of such a victim inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful.
Case title - Asif Ahmad Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5500 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 137
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of CrPC, can issue a summons to a person even on the basis of the statement under Section 164 CrPC, even though such a person is not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, however, clarified that before summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to a prima facie conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police, some other persons are involved in the offence.
Case title - Indra Pal and another vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court altered the Kidnapping for Ransom (Section 364A IPC) conviction of two men who kidnapped an 11-year-old boy, to that of Kidnapping with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person (Section 365 IPC), on the ground that the alleged letter for ransom sent to father of the child was not proved by prosecution.
Taking into account the evidence on record, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava observed that the intention of the appellants/convicts for kidnapping the son of the informant was to keep him secretly and under wrongful confinement.
Case title - Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail pleas
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 143
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that unless a minor victim denies explicitly the existence of physical relation, it can be presumed that the victim and accused, who lived as husband-wife or that they solemnised marriage, had established physical relation.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further held in those cases where the existence of a physical relationship between the minor victim and accused could be presumed, then a rape case could be made out as the fact of whether consent was given or not, is immaterial.
Case title - Udit Arya vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4560 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a proclaimed offender is not barred from filing an Anticipatory bail application under section 438 of CrPC.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further observed that neither Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding) nor Section 438 CrPC imposes any restriction in the filing of the anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender.
In this regard, the bench also referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 to note that the Top Court had said the anticipatory bail application of the proclaimed offender should not be entertained normally.
Case title - Waseem Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 203 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), while ordering the release of the attached properties of one Wasim Khan under the UP-Gangster Act, observed that the court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing orders of the seizure (of the properties of the alleged gangster Wasim Khan) sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and upheld by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow.
Case title - Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1496 of 1995]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere use of a lethal weapon is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 307 and that it is not necessary to constitute the offence that the attack should result in an injury.
"An attempt is itself sufficient if there is requisite intention. An intention to murder can be gathered from circumstances other than the existence or nature of the injury," the bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I held.
With this, the bench upheld the conviction of accused-Kamal Singh in connection with a 32 year old attempt to murder case.
However, the Court reduced the sentence period awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in 1992, from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment without modifying the fine imposed on him.
Case title - Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3552 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that no person can apply for bail in parts and that an accused is required to seek bail for all the offences for which he is wanted.
“No person can be permitted to apply for bail in part, that too firstly getting bail by invoking powers u/s 437 CrPC and later on taking recourse to Section 438 CrPC in the other sections. He has to apply for bail in all the sections he is wanted either u/s 437 CrPC or 438 CrPC,” the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said.
The bench held thus while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea filed by two applicants under Sections 392 and 452 IPC.
Case title - Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 471 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate has the power under Section 190 CrPC to issue summons against persons who have not been mentioned as an accused in the charge sheet or arraigned in the first information report.
The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 wherein it was held by the Top Court that if there are materials before the Magistrate showing the complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in the commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage, could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence.
Case title - Guddu Verma vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2207 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be attracted in a case unless the initial burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is prima facie discharged by the prosecution.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by one Guddu Verma who was convicted by the trial court in 2016 for (allegedly) killing his wife in April 1998.
Case title - Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2047 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate can drop proceedings against an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act if he offers a fair and acceptable amount, which, in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta wherein the top Court had observed that an accused in a case under Section 138 of NI Act can be discharged even without the consent of the complainant if the Court is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated.
“The Supreme Court did not say that the requirement of consent for compounding may just be done away with. Instead, widening the compensatory aspect of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Apex Court has carved out a window in the existing scheme of things saying that the case can be disposed of without obtaining direct consent of the complainant under certain circumstances. The circumstances included offering an amount fair and acceptable which in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant. That is under certain circumstances the court can proceed in the absence of direct consent. The court is empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC,” the Court said.
Case title - Rajesh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10336 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court observed that there has been an alarming and shocking increase in sexual offences committed against children.
Noting that all such sexual assaults are not reported and do not come to light, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added thus:
“…this is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of the rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls.”
Case title - Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to a man, and his lover, who killed his wife after setting her ablaze in 2011 merely because she was a strong protester of their illicit relationship.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that such persons are not entitled to any leniency as they are a black spot in society.
“This version of P.W.-3 that the accused-appellants, namely, Jaikishan @ Bablu and Anita used to have illicit relations, which the deceased used to object and due to which the accused-appellant Jaikishan used to beat and torture the deceased and ultimately, in the night of the incident, both the accused-appellants killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire, has been fully supported by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.-2 and the version as unfolded in the FIR, even though the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are hear say witnesses but they are consistent from the very beginning and till the recording of their statements before the trial court,” the Court concluded in its operative part of the Judgment.
Case title - Asharam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57301 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Refusing to grant bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court said it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added that in our country, a woman, a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than implicate somebody falsely. Hence, until she is a victim of a sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
Case title - Devendra Singh And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7901 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court disapproved the issuance of notice under Section 160 of CrPC to 5 accused in connection with an FIR registered against them in the year 2006, about 17 years back.
Calling it a mockery of the criminal jurisprudence, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Gajendra Kumar protected the 5 accused and also gave them the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Case title - Kundan Yadav vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23297 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere possession of live cow/bullock or merely transporting cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to bail to one Kundan Yadav who was arrested in March this year in connection with the alleged recovery of 6 cows from a vehicle. He was booked under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the U.P. Prevention Cow Slaughter Act, 1964 and Section 11 Prevention to Animal Cruelty Act, 1960.
Case Title - Mohammad Zaid vs. tate of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 177
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) recently held that a child in conflict with the law has an equal and efficacious right to seek his remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC like any other citizen but with the restrictions imposed in the said provision itself.
While answering a reference made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Samit Gopal further held thus:
- Section 1(4) of the Act, 2015 does not exclude the application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a child in conflict with the law after the F.I.R. is registered against him as there is no provision contrary in the Act 2015 to the Cr.P.C. to make it inapplicable.
- A juvenile or a child in conflict with law can be arrested and/or apprehended if such a need arises, but he cannot be left remedy-less till the time of his arrest and/or apprehension. He can explore the remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. if a need arises. The remedy of bail under Section 12 of the Act 2015 can be invoked by a juvenile or a child in conflict with law at the appropriate stage.
- An inquiry is required to be conducted by the concerned Board for declaring a person as a juvenile and then extending the benefit of the beneficial legislation to him.
- The required enquiry under Section 14 and preliminary assessment into heinous offence under Section 15 of the Act 2015 where required can be done while the child in conflict with law is on anticipatory bail.
Case title - Rameshwar Lal Chauhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 183 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6920 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 183
The Allahabad High Court set aside a murder conviction on the ground that though the trial court relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased to convict the accused, the same was not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC seeking his explanation.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed that the accused could not explain a vital circumstance as he was never confronted with the incriminating material of the dying declaration, which formed the basis of the conviction.
Case title - Karuna Shanker and another vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 191 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 267 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Observing that mere non-recovery of the weapon cannot demolish the case of the prosecution, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to two murder convicts in a 41-year-old case.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav further observed that other accused involved in the crime remain untraced, it cannot be presumed that the whole incident is false
The bench concluded that the eyewitnesses in the case could prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that there was no reason to doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses.
“Hence it is well established from the evidence on record that murder of the deceased was committed by the convicts/appellants namely Karuna Shankar and Rajkishore in association with two unknown miscreants,” the Court said as it upheld their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Case title - Mohd. Aarif Alias Aarif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3922 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Special POCSO Court can treat an application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC as a complaint case under Section 190 (1) (a) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus:
“Concludingly, I am of the view that the trial court has ample power to treat the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC as a complaint case, therefore, in the POCSO Act proceedings of complaint case can be launched, as in this regard a statutory provision under Section 33 of the POCSO Act already exists. As per Section 33 of the POCSO Act, a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a police report of such facts. Thus, on the perusal of the entire provisions of the POCSO Act, it appears that there is no bar for prosecution and cognizance in the matter related to the complaint under Section 190 (1) (a) CrPC”
The Court held thus while refusing to quash a summoning order issued against the Accused as well as proceedings in a POCSO Case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bahraich.
Case title - Dr. Kartikeya Sharma And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3107 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The Allahabad High Court observed that an anticipatory bail application moved by an accused can never be rejected on the ground that now a charge sheet has been filed in the matter or that the court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence.
Stressing that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested, the bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava also observed thus:
“…even if the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken by the court against the accused, who has got an immunity from being arrested during the course of investigation either by way of order of a competent court protecting him by grant of anticipatory bail or by service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, anticipatory bail application moved by him is legally maintainable…”
Case title - Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7496 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court observed that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
“…a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia observed.
Case Title: Ram Vilas vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Ors [Writ C No. 1562 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 220
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground for cancellation of a firearm license in the absence of a specific recording by a competent authority that possession of the same would be dangerous to public peace, safety and security.
Relying on the decision of a coordinate bench in Ram Prasad v. Commissioner and others, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“it is undoubtedly to say that merely pendency of the criminal case or with the apprehension that the petitioner may be involved in future in any other criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear cut finding is recorded by the Competent Authorities that the possession of the fire arms caused threatening of the public peace and is danger for the safety of human being. The Competent Authorities fail to record any such finding in the impugned orders.”
Case title - Vivek Kumar Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 237 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23551 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Observing that genuine cases of such sexual offences are now an "exception", the Allahabad High Court said that since girls/women have the “upper hand” when it comes to the protection of the law, they “easily succeed” in implicating a boy or man in such cases.
The Court also noted that a large number of cases are coming in courts wherein girls and women “take undue advantage” by lodging FIRs on false allegations after indulging in a long physical relationship with the accused.
Case title - Shivam Kumar Pal @ Sonu Pal And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11560 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The Allahabad High Court last week imposed a cost of Rs. 10K on a woman who admittedly lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against 4 men falsely accusing them of committing the offences of rape, and unnatural sex against her.
The Court also said that the practice of lodging FIRs and falsely making serious allegations of rape cannot be permitted and that such a practice has to be dealt with a "heavy hand".
"The criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for setting personal disputes by filing first information reports which are admittedly false," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh remarked further.
Case title - Ajay Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is very unfortunate that nowadays, in "maximum cases" women are filing false FIRs under the POCSO/SC-ST Act using it as a "weapon to grab money" from the state and this practice should stop.
The Court noted that such false FIRs are being lodged just for taking money from the State and the same has the effect of ruining the image of innocent persons in society.
"Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such type of crimes of sexual violence, I think that it is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue," the bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav further observed as it granted anticipatory bail to a Rape accused.
Case title - Govardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12619 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Observing that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 are being rampantly missed, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to form uniform guidelines by October 31 regarding the applicability of this Act
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi ordered thus as it observed that in the state of UP, there is no uniformity in the executive authorities of the districts of UP regarding the applicability of this "deterrent" enactment causing "unwarranted piling up of the cases", challenging the notices under this Act etc.
Case title - Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 661 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who was convicted by the trial court under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years over allegations of instigating/abetting the suicide of his wife.
Having analysed the evidence on record, the Court said that some more overt act, though maybe an indirect one, was required on the part of the accused to bring his acts or conduct within the meaning of the word 'instigation' and therefore, he was entitled to acquittal.
Case Title: Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283 [CAPITAL CASES No. - 3809 of 2015 with Reference No.10 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283
The Allahabad High Court set aside the sentence of the death penalty imposed on a man accused of killing his mother-in-law and brother-in-law by setting them ablaze as the Court noted that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
“We find in the facts of the case that the court below has not subjected the testimony of witnesses to careful scrutiny and has accepted the prosecution case on its basis. The law with regard to the evaluation of the dying declaration has also not been applied correctly in the facts of the present case,” the bench Of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it gave a benefit of doubt to the accused.
Case title - Abu Talib Husain And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18824 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mutawalli of the wakf board, despite being deemed to be a public servant, is not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC (Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants).
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that for applicability of Section 197 CrPC even for the person who is deemed to be a servant under any statute other than IPC, he must be removable by or with the sanction of Central or the State Government.
Case title - Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the failure of the state police to serve the summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court is affecting the fundamental rights of the accused and their right to obtain bail in a timely manner.
"Rights of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated and fair administration of right of bail is being hampered as a consequence of these failures of the police department," the Court opined.
Case Title: Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges framed against him.
Case title - Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 935 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302
The Allahabad High Court observed that even if the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was secured illegally, the same would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against such accused.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while rejecting a revision plea filed challenging the order of a trial court refusing to discharge an accused (Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi) in a case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case title - Jose Papachen And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 877 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court has observed that providing good teachings, distributing Holy Bible books, and performing Bhandara does not amount to 'allurement' for religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmad also explained the scope of Section 4 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 [person competent to lodge FIR] as to who can lodge an FIR regarding the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Case title - Khalid Anwar Alias Anwar Khalid vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Branch Hear New Delhi [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1981 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 312
The Allahabad High Court has observed that until and unless a written proclamation is not published as per Section 82 CrPC, the occasion for the applicant being “declared” a proclaimed offender doesn't arise.
Referring to the provisions laid down under Section 82 of CrPC, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that a proclamation has to be been 'published' as provided under Subsection (1) of Section 82 CrPC before a person is declared as a proclaimed offender under Subsection (4) of Section 82 CrPC.
Case title - Sushil Kumar And 2 Others vs. Legislative Council U.P. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 11 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Expressing doubts regarding fairness in the recruitment process of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council staff, the Allahabad High Court has directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary probe into the matter and submit a report by the first week of November.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ordered thus while hearing a special appeal as well as a writ petition filed before it challenging an earlier order which dismissed a writ filed by petitioners in April this year challenging the recruitment process.
Case title - Ram Komal and two others vs. State of U.P. and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 348 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12417 of 2005]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even after the submission of a charge sheet, the investigation of a case can be transferred to the police of another police station and there is no necessity to obtain permission from the concerned court.
The bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma also said that even after the Court took cognizance of any offence, on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the Police to conduct further investigation in a given case.
“There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. The casting of any such obligation on Court would only result in encumbering it with the burden of searching for all potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard,” the Court further added.
Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether an application, filed under Section 482 of CrPC, challenging entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act, is maintainable.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir referred the issue in question as it noted that there were conflicting judgments of the High Court regarding the maintainability of such an application moved under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: Smt. Manorama Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6848 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that a victim cannot make multiple requests for recording her statement a fresh under Section 164 CrPC. The Court held that though there is no bar on the Investigation Officer to move applications for recording statement under Section 164 CrPC a second or a third time, the victim cannot make such requests as it will destroy the sanctity of such statements.
“For certain good reasons, the statement under sections 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once. But that doesn't mean that victim or the I.O. can keep on giving such applications for recording of statements any number of times without any good cause. Doing so, will destroy the sanctity of such statements and in my view, shall frustrate the very purpose behind such statements,” held Justice Jyotsna Sharma.
Case title - Surendra Koli vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Acquitting prime suspects Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Surinder Koli in the 2005-2006 Noida serial murder cases (Nithari Kand) for lack of evidence, the Allahabad High Court has raised serious questions regarding how the investigation in the case was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
A Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi also pulled up the CBI for 'completely overlooking' the strong possibility of organ trade being an actual reason behind murders.
Case title - Deepak Prakash Singh @ Deepak Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10246 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an accused has been booked under the POCSO Act as well as the SC/ST Act, the provision of the former will prevail over the latter and an anticipatory bail plea moved by such accused would be maintainable.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea moved by one Deepak Prakash Singh, a teacher by profession, who has been accused of committing rape on a 14-year-old mentally retarded girl.
Case title - Mohd Imran Kazi vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31091 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely liking a post on Social Media will not amount to publishing or transmitting the said post and therefore, the act will not attract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal further observed that the words appearing in Section 67 of the IT Act are "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" which means relating to sexual interest and desire, and therefore, the provision does not prescribe any punishment for any other provocative material.
Case Title: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45007 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and it was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, the Allahabad High Court observed.
Noting that nowadays, more often than not, the Act has become a tool for their exploitation, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stressed that the fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail in such cases.
Case title - Banti Sharma Alias Brahm Prakash Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11952 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court last week observed that filing an anticipatory bail application, while there being a regular bail application pending, is a misuse of the process of the Court.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Banti Sharma, booked under Sections 420, 406 IPC for allegedly usurping the money of several persons.
Case title - Swami Prasad Maurya vs state of UP and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court last week REJECTED UP MLC and Samajwadi Party Leader Swami Prasad Maurya's plea to quash entire criminal proceedings in the case lodged against him for his alleged controversial remark over Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas.
Observing that healthy criticism does not mean that such words are used that prompt people to commit crimes, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted thus:
"It prima facie appears that due to the (alleged) statement, some other leaders across India unanimously agreed to burn copies of Shri Ramcharitmanas and they used foul language against Hindu society, due to which, unrest was created in the public mind and a feeling of hostility and animosity arose among various sections of the Hindu religion." (emphasis supplied)
Case title - Khalid Khan And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 29284 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court held that a Judicial Magistrate, while dealing with an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering for the registration of the FIR in cases where he thinks that no cognizable offence is made out.
The court, however, added that the scope of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
Case title - Shamim And Others vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5690 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court acquitted three men in a case for the offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and that the statement of the prosecutrix was full of discrepancies and did not inspire confidence. The incident took place in 1991, about 32 years ago.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla noted that though the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however, in the instant case, the evidence of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, did not corroborate with the medical evidence and hence, the same was not worthy of credence.
Case title - Allama Zamir Naqvi Alias Tahir In Fir Zameen Naqvi Alias Tahir vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 430 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2553 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the benefit of the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 which revived the provision of anticipatory bail in the State (with effect from June 6, 2019) is also applicable to the persons 'apprehending arrest' after the enactment of the 2018 Amendment Act even if the offence was committed before its enactment.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi added that the 2018 Amendment Act merely restores the benefit of anticipatory bail to persons apprehending arrest, which was available to the persons in the State of UP till 1976 and hence, this being a beneficial legislation, it cannot be restricted in its operation to offences committed after enactment of Act in 2019.
Case title - Arvind Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court acquitted three accused in a 1999 rape and murder case concerning a 13-year-old girl as it found that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants were the real culprits.
“No doubt that the victim has been sexually assaulted and was strangled to death but it is not proved that the appellants accused are the real culprits and they have committed the offence,” the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it allowed the appeal filed by the accused against their conviction by the trial court.
Case title – XYZ vs. State of UP and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court observed that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled on the basis of an application filed claiming that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain reasoned that if based on such an application, bail granted to the accused is cancelled, then it would open a Pandora's box and endless litigation would start between both parties.
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480
While acquitting a husband of the charges under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing an “unnatural offence” against his wife, the Allahabad High Court has observed that protection of a person from marital rape continues in cases where his wife is of 18 years of age or more than that.
In its order, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also noted that in the proposed Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (which is likely to replace the Indian Penal Code), there is no provision like Section 377 IPC.
Case title - Lalla vs. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court set aside the rape conviction of a man (who has been in jail since 2000) given the doubts surrounding the credibility of the victim's testimony, which was, in the court's opinion, 'shaky' or unreliable. The alleged incident took place in January 1997.
In its order, a bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the victim's age beyond the medical report, which confirmed she was above 16. In this regard, the Court noted that as per the unamended Indian Penal Code, at that time (in the year 1997), the age of consent for sexual intercourse was 16 years.
