Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 16 To February 22, 2026
Sparsh Upadhyay
3 March 2026 12:59 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two accused in the Codeine Cough Syrup Racket on grounds that huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup was recovered from them.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held,
“In the opinion of the Court the exemption provisions are required to be strictly and literally complied with and further that the conditions under which the exemption is granted is strictly adhered to…Any violation of any condition would desentitle the claimant the exemption. In the instant case the possession of huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup has been recovered and thus the condition 'established in therapeutic practice' is flagrantly violated denying the applicants of the exemption.”
Case title - Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate is legally bound to consider and pass an order on the Final Report (closure report) filed by the police, even in those cases where he has already taken cognizance of the offence based on an earlier charge sheet.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that if the Magistrate proceeds further in the case without considering the Final Report at all, such inaction amounts to a "procedural illegality".
Case title - Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court has held that while the "reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner under Section 69 CGST Act 2017 need not be furnished to the accused, the "grounds of arrest" must mandatorily be supplied to him as an Annexure to the Arrest Memo.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay thus allowed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Jai Kumar Aggarwal while setting aside the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Case title - Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Allahabad High Court has held that a certificate issued by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, acts as conclusive proof of gender/identity for the issuance of a passport.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the Passport Authority can't demand a fresh medical examination or changes to the birth certificate for the issuance of a passport.
Case Title: Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1995 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has held that pension being received by the claimant and the family pension received by the legal heirs of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident should not be considered at the time of calculating compensations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another and Hanumantharaju B. through LR vs. M. Akram Pasha and another, Justice Sandeep Jain held
“It is apparent from the above judgements of the Apex Court that the pension paid to the claimant or family pension being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee is not to be considered and deducted while assessing compensation in the claim case and the compensation is to be determined on the basis of salary/pension of the injured/deceased, which he was getting at the time of the accident.”
Case title - Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that a statement made by a counsel without specific instructions from the client can't be treated as a binding undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar thus withdrew contempt charges for alleged wilful disobedience of a Court order against the respondent.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has observed that a detention order under the National Security Act 1980 can be passed against an accused who is already in jail if the authority is of the opinion that, upon his release on bail, he will indulge in acts prejudicial to public order.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by one Sunil Kumar Gupta, challenging the invocation of the NSA against himwhile they were in jail.
Case title - Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against two students who were implicated for offering Namaz at a location designated by the local administration for that purpose.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava also warned the students to follow the instructions and specific restraints issued by the local administration in the future.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88 [WRIT - C No. - 41622 of 2025]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
In a petition seeking CRPF protection for life, the Allahabad High Court held that having police protection has become more of a status symbol at the cost of taxpayers' money.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed
“..it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers' money.”
Case title - Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to YouTuber and Comedian Mani Miraj, alias Ramdi Miraj Alam, who is facing serious allegations of rape, assault, unnatural offences and forced abortion.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary after the informant/victim personally appeared before the Court and submitted a handwritten statement confirming a mutual compromise between the parties.
Case Title: Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [WRIT - C No. - 130 of 2026]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power under Rule 64(2)(b) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to cancel allotment of a residential plot if construction is not made on it within a reasonable time and after giving notices to the concerned party.
Justice Alok Mathur held,
“To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of construction of a house within a reasonable time. In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to construct house, notice should certainly be given to him requiring him to construct his house within the time prescribed and even if within the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64 and cancel the allotment.”
Case title - Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of a prisoner in its custody, even if the death is a patently unnatural suicide.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that the right to life and human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an intrinsic, inviolable and omnipresent right extended even to an individual who is illegally arrested and detained by the State.