Kuntesh vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328

Lila and another vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329

Chandra Shekhar Nishad vs Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt.New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330

M/S Shri Rk Cold Storage And General Mils And 3 Others vs State of UP and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331

Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Sharif Ahmad and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333

Suresh Shah Sisodiya v. Jai Prakash Yadav 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334

Rakesh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Vikas Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Allahabad HC Acquits Rape Accused Who Spent 9 Yrs In Jail; Cites Inconsistencies In 8 Y/O Victim's Testimony, No Medical Evidence

Case title - Kuntesh vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 328

The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who spent over 9 years in jail on the allegations of committing rape and offences under the POCSO Act against an 8-year-old girl.

Considering the inconsistencies and improvements in the minor victim's testimony, the conduct of her father and the absence of corroborative medical evidence, a Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside a 2019 judgment of the trial Court that had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.

Law Doesn't Require Eyewitnesses To Sign Inquest Report; Testimony Unaffected If Their Names Absent From Police Papers: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Lila and another vs State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 329

The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life imprisonment of a man convicted of a brutal daylight murder in 1998, as it clarified that the testimony of a credible eyewitness cannot be discarded merely because they did not sign the inquest report and other police papers, including spot recovery memos.

A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II added that there is "absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness".

Only Parliament Can Modify SC List: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea To Treat Nishad, Kevat As Synonyms Of 'Majhwar' Caste

Case title - Chandra Shekhar Nishad vs Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt.New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330

The Allahabad High Court rejected a petition seeking a direction to treat the communities of Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah and Bind as synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar, which is already a notified Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh.

A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai clarified that neither State Governments nor courts have the power to alter, vary, or identify 'synonyms' for existing Scheduled Caste entries.

'Individual Interest Must Yield': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Halt UP Govt's '24 Kosi' Pilgrimage Route For Proposed Cold Storage

Case title - M/S Shri Rk Cold Storage And General Mils And 3 Others vs State of UP and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 331

The Allahabad High Court has refused to restrain the construction of the Uttar Pradesh Government's ambitious '24 Kosi Parikrama Marg' in Sambhal, terming it an "important public project" done in accordance with the policy of the Government.

For context, the state government recently approved the project for the new construction, widening, and strengthening of the 24 Kosi Vansh Gopal Teerth Parikrama Marg under its charitable scheme for the financial year 2025-26 to ensure convenient transit for devotees.

Belated POSH Complaints Can't Be Rejected At Threshold Without Considering Reasons For Delay: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 332

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that sexual harassment complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 cannot be rejected at threshold due to delay, without specific consideration of reasons.

No Fundamental Right To Use Particular Road For Religious Rites: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea For New Muharram Procession Route

Case Title: Sharif Ahmad and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333

The Allahabad High Court has observed that while Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental right to freedom of religion, it doesn't entitle a community to use a particular road for the performance of religious rites. [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333]

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar added that it is the civil and police administration that is responsible for earmarking routes for processions involving a multitude of people.

Small Cause Court Should Return Plaint Where Bona Fide Title Dispute Can't Be Summarily Decided: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Suresh Shah Sisodiya v. Jai Prakash Yadav 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 334

The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not mandatory for the Small Causes Court to return the plaint on title dispute but where substantial issues are found to be involved, then the plaint must be returned to be placed before the regular court of competent jurisdiction.

Referring to Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“While Section 23 is couched in discretionary terms and does not render return of the plaint mandatory in every case, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and upon sound principles. Where the dispute of title is bona fide, substantial and incapable of summary adjudication, it would be a proper and prudent exercise of jurisdiction for the Court of Small Causes to return the plaint for presentation before the competent civil court rather than proceed to determine the controversy within the confines of its limited summary jurisdiction.”

'Old Torn Hymen' Can't Give Benefit Of Doubt In Rape Case If Victim's Testimony Reliable: Allahabad High Court Upholds 1983 Conviction

Case Title: Rakesh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Clarifying that Rape is a 'legal term', not a 'medical term', the Allahabad High Court observed that if the survivor's hymen was "old torn", an accused cannot be granted the benefit of doubt solely on this ground, provided the statement of the victim regarding committing rape is "wholly reliable".

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that a hymen may be torn due to different factors such as sports, cycling, gymnastics, horse-riding, extraneous physical labour, or accidental injury, etc.

Welfare Scheme House Allotment To Wife Doesn't Disentitle Her From Claiming Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 336

The Allahabad High Court observed that allotment of a residential house to a woman under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood, disentitling her from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also added that a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earning a meagre income.

Parents Supporting Wife During Distress Doesn't Absolve Husband Of Duty To Pay Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vikas Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC merely because her parents support her financially during times of distress.

A bench of Justice Garima Prashad added that the income of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the income of the wife, and parental assistance is not a substitute for the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.