Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 271 - 306]

Sparsh Upadhyay
2 July 2022 8:43 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 271 - 306]
x

NOMINAL INDEX Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271 Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272 Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273 Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274 Saleem...

NOMINAL INDEX

Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271

Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272

Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273

Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274

Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275

Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276

Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277

M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278

Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279

Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280

Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281

Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282

Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283

Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284

Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285

Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286

Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287

Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288

Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289

Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290

Mohammed Zubair v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl Chief Secy. (Home), Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 291

Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 292

Prabhakar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 293

Mukesh Bansal v State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 294

Anoop Kumar Singh And Another Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 295

Tanishk Srivastava, Lucknow Thru. Father Ranjeet Km. Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prim. Edu. Civil Secrtt. Bapu Bhawan Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 296

Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297

Harit Kisan Kalyan Samiti Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 298

Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299

M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300

Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301

Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Irfan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Manish v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 304

Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 305

Mohar Pal And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 306

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE Month

Why So Many AAGs & Chief Standing Counsels Appointed To Defend State?: Allahabad HC Directs Placing Of Matter Before UP Cabinet

Case title - Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others

Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271

In a significant order, the High Court asked the UP Govt as to what is the requirement to appoint so many Additional Advocate Generals and Chief Standing Counsels at Allahabad High Court (both Benches) to defend the State when already more than 400 State lawyers are impaneled by it.

The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also took expectation to the practice of outsourcing the lawyers on behalf of the State and its various authorities and corporations wherein a big amount of taxpayers' money is being used.

Essentially, the Court was dealing with a contempt petition in a land acquisition matter. When the court reserved its Judgment, the Additional Advocate General M. C. Chaturvedi made a request that his appearance be recorded not only for the State of U.P. but also for the Ghaziabad Development Authority.

"People Of Rural Areas Have Much Better Eye-Sight Than That Of Town Folks": Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 3 Murder Convicts

Case title - Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272

The High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence awarded to three murder convicts for killing one Kadhiley in April 2004. The Court also underscored that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases.

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav further stressed that the Court the criminal jurisprudence in India recognizes that the eyesight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks.

"Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also," the Court said as it discarded the argument of the convicts that there was no light at the place of occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility of identification of the assailants in the instant case.

"Prosecution Failed To Produce Evidence To Complete Chain Of Circumstances": Allahabad High Court Acquits 2 Accused Of Murder Charges

Case title - Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273

The High Court acquitted two accused of murder charges. The Court held that the instant case was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had completely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which unerringly points toward the involvement and guilt of the two appellants.

The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Shamim Ahmed also stressed that suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof.

"Child's Life At Stake": Allahabad HC Grants Bail To POCSO Accused On Condition To Take Care Of Victim/Wife, Their Child

Case title - Ramshankar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12510 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274

The High Court granted bail to a POCSO Accused taking into account the welfare of the child born out of wedlock of Accused and Victim. The Court stressed that the life of a newborn child is at stake and she can't be left to face the stigma during her life.

In the instant case, the accused and the victim (both from the same village) had a love affair and out of fear of the villagers, the accused has eloped with the victim in May 2018 and had undergone marriage in a temple although the said marriage was not registered.

"Serve Cows For 1 Month, Deposit 1 Lakh In Gaushala": Allahabad HC Imposes Bail Condition On 'UP Cow Slaughter Act' Accused

Case title - Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48222 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that he shall serve the cows for a period of one month in Gaushala after his release from the jail.

The bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav issued this order while granting bail to one Saleem Alias Kaliya, who was booked under Sections 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Rape Accused As Victim Resiled From Her Statement, Orders Refund Of Compensation Paid To Her

Case title - Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12379 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276

The High Court granted bail to a rape accused in view of the fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution's case during the trial and that she had been declared hostile.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh also issued direction to the trial court to take steps for a refund of the compensation paid to her and also, ensure compliance of Section 344 CrPC [Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence] in the instant case.

"Considering the societal interest, it is high time for the trial court to resort to Section 344 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases. In the present case since the prosecutrix before the trial Court has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution's version, therefore she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government, which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country," the court ordered as it granted bail to the accused.

Allahabad HC Deletes 'Onerous' Bail Condition Of Surrendering Passport Imposed On Urdu Scholar In Matrimonial Dispute

Case title - Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 142 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277

The High Court ordered the deletion of an interim bail condition imposed on an Urdu scholar Mirza Shafiq Husain Shafaq in connection with a matrimonial dispute regarding the deposit of his passport before the S.S.P/S.P concerned.

Calling the bail condition 'onerous', the Bench of Justice Siddharth emphasized upon the fundamental right to travel abroad as it referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in the case of Capt. Anila Bhatia vs State Of Haryana. Further, the Court ordered that the condition of the surrender of the passport be deleted.

Section 102 (3) CrPC | Non-Reporting Of Bank Account Seizure Forthwith To Magistrate Doesn't Make Seizure Illegal: Allahabad HC

Case title - M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278

The High Court observed that non-reporting of the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) forthwith to the magistrate concerned doesn't render such seizure ipsofact illegal.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it relied upon and agreed with Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207.

UP Jal Nigam Recruitment Scam | Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against SP Leader Azam Khan's Co-Accused

Case title - Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused (Bhavesh Jain) in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam case.

The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav noted that the complaint and the charge sheet submitted against the accused, a software engineer, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under the relevant sections of the I.P.C.

Court Can Allow Prosecution To Produce Certificate U/S 65-B (4) Evidence Act At A Later Stage During Trial: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 588 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280

The High Court observed that the trial court has the power to allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point of time during the trial.

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus as it upheld the order of the trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution under section 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they were not filed in property form during the filming of the charge sheet.

It may be noted that Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act requires the production of a certificate for leading secondary evidence of an electronic record. This provision aims to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.

Allahabad HC Explains Ingredients To Constitute Offence U/S 308 IPC [Attempt To Commit Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder]

Case title - Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 584 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281

In an order passed in a criminal revision, the High Court explained the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC [attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder].

Matrimonial Case Should Be Quashed If Husband-Wife Have Resolved Dispute Through Compromise Deed Duly Verified By Court: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 650 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282

The High Court observed that matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themself through a compromise deed duly filed and verified by the Court.

The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed thus as it quashed criminal proceedings initiated by an FIR lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act

'Deplorable' That Public Representatives Compel Govt Servants To Pass Illegal Orders And They Do So: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1959 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283

"It is deplorable that the representative of the public compel the public servant to pass illegal orders and the public servant comply their illegal dictates without any demur," observed the High Court in one of its orders.

The Bench of Justice Siddharth made this stern remark while allowing a plea filed by one Basrat Ullah challenging an order passed by Special Secretary, UP Govt removing him as the Principal of Madarsa Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrool Uloom at District Basti.

Once Magistrate Takes Cognizance Of Offences He Can't Review His Own Order & Drop/Withdraw Section(s): Allahabad High Court

Case title - Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 718 of 2006]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284

The High Court observed that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under certain sections/offences, it has no power to review its own order for dropping section(s) from the cognizance order.

The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus as it upheld an order of the magistrate rejecting an application filed by the accused/petitioner to withdraw cognizance order in connection with one of the offences of the charge sheet (on which the magistrate had earlier taken cognizance).

[NDPS Act] "Sampling Not Done As Per 1989 Standing Order In Seizure Of 201 KG Ganja": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail

Case title - Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18303 of 2020]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285

The High Court granted conditional bail to an NDPS Accused Wali Hasan, accused of smuggling 201 kg of ganja in view of the fact that the sampling of the Ganja was not done as per the Standing Order/Instruction No.1 of 1989.

The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai ordered to release the applicant- Wali Hassan on bail on his furnishing a personal bonds and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Of Judicial Officers Having Less Than 3 Years Of Service To Appear For UPHJS Eligibility Test 2020

Case title - Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286

The High Court dismissed a petition filed by UP Judicial Services Association along with some of the judicial officers (having less than 3 years of experience as of December 31, 2021) seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those judges who have completed three years in service can't be interfered with by the Court in its Writ jurisdiction.

Advertising Vacancy In Newspaper Having Less Circulation Violates Fundamental Rights Of Prospective Candidates: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 289 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287

The High Court observed that failure to properly advertise vacant posts is a violation of the fundamental right of the prospective/potential candidates and is also unfair to such candidates. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order.

Essentially, one Ravi Pratap Mishra had moved before the single judge stating that he was appointed as a clerk in a school, however, Mishra the District Inspector Of School had refused to sanction his appointment as a clerk on the ground that the advertisement clerical recruitment had been published in a newspaper having less circulation in the concerned area.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Transferring A Nationalised Bank Employee Whose Wife Is Having 100% Disability

Case title - Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3793 of 2022]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288

The High Court quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016], therefore, as per the bank's transfer policy, he shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer.

Object Of Engrafting Section 319 CrPC Is To Not Allow A Person Who Deserves To Be Tried To Go Scot-Free: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2173 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289

Explaining the scope and power of the court under Section 319 CrPC, the High Court observed that this provision allows the court to summon those persons who are not named in the charge sheet to appear and face trial (in certain circumstances).

The Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that the very object of engrafting section 319 Cr.P.C. is to not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free.

No Desertion/Cruelty If Wife Visits Her Parents' House Frequently Without Taking Husband's Consent: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor [FIRST APPEAL No. - 351 of 2020]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290

The High Court observed that the act of the wife in visiting her parents house frequently without taking consent of her husband and other family members can neither constitute the offence of desertion nor amounts to cruelty.

The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus as it allowed an appeal filed by the Appellant/wife challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting divorce decree in favor of the husband.

Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Alt News' Mohd. Zubair Over His Tweet Allegedly Calling 3 Hindu Seers 'Hate Mongers'

Case title - Mohammed Zubair v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl Chief Secy. (Home), Lko. And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 291

The High Court dismissed a petition moved by the Co-Founder of Alt News, Mohammed Zubair challenging an FIR registered against him earlier this month for a tweet in which he allegedly called 3 Hindu seers- Yati Narasinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni and Anand Swaroop as 'Hate mongers'

It may be noted that Zubair was booked by the Uttar Pradesh Police earlier this month under sections 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

"He Is A Dreaded Criminal, A Canker In Society" Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Ex-MLA Mukhtar Ansari In Funds Misappropriation Case

Case title - Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46494 of 2021]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 292

While denying bail to former MLA Mukhtar Ansari (presently in jail) in connection with a case over misappropriation of MLA Funds fund in the year 2012-13, the High Court called him a dreaded and 'White Collored' criminal, an interstate mafia and canker in society

The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that Ansari is a hardened and habitual offender, who is in the sphere of crime since 1986 but surprisingly, he has managed not a single conviction against him.

Sessions Court Can't Quash Cognizance & Summoning Order Of Magistrate While Exercising Its Revisional Power: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Prabhakar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2341 of 2001]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 293

In a significant observation, the High Court said that while exercising the revisional power, the Sessions Court cannot quash the cognizance and summoning order passed by the Magistrate as its revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed further added that in case the Sessions Court finds any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error while acting as a revisional court, then instead of quashing the proceedings, it had power only to issue direction by pointing out the error in the magistrate order.

No Arrest During 2 Months' Cooling-Off Period After FIR Registration: Allahabad HC Issues Safeguards Against S. 498A Misuse

Case title - Mukesh Bansal v State of UP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 294

Allahabad High Court on Monday issued certain guidelines/safeguards to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

One of the guidelines issued by the Court states that after the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under 498A IPC, no arrest or coercive action should be taken against the accused during the cooling-off period of two months.

During this period, the Court has ordered that the issue should be referred to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC). It may be noted Section 498-A punishes a woman's husband or his relatives if they subject her to cruelty.

Sympathy Or Compassion Has No Role In Matter Of Directing Or Not Directing Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheets: Allahabad HC

Case title - Anoop Kumar Singh And Another Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 295

The High Court has observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheets.

The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet.

Receiving Proper Education Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 21A Of Constitution Of India: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Tanishk Srivastava, Lucknow Thru. Father Ranjeet Km. Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prim. Edu. Civil Secrtt. Bapu Bhawan Lko And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 296

The High Court recently observed that receiving proper education is a Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further observed that educational authorities must ensure that the grievance relating to the admission to an institution is redressed with promptness and does not remain unattended.

Consider Laying Down Protocol For Receiving Mortal Remains Of Soldiers Martyred In Line Of Duty: Allahabad HC To UP Govt

Case title - Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23466 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297

The High Court has directed the State Government to consider the framing of a code laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also stressed that the solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country.

"Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung," the Court added.

NOIDA Authority's Demolition Drive Along Yamuna Floodplains Temporarily Halted By Allahabad High Court

Case title - Harit Kisan Kalyan Samiti Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17175 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 298

The High Court ordered a conditional stay on the demolition drive being carried out by the Noida Authority along the Yamuna floodplains.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Sameer Jain issued this order on a plea challenging a public notice issued by the NOIDA Authority on June 8 declaring that no construction is permissible in the Yamuna/Hindon flood plains area and all the constructions therein shall be liable to be demolished.

Delay In Conclusion Of Proceedings Can't Be A Reason To Reject An Application U/S 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12409 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299

The High Court has observed that a delay in the conclusion of the proceedings/trial should not be the reason for the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it quashed an order of the Trial Court wherein an application moved under Section 311 CrPC was rejected noting that the case had been pending for a substantial amount of time.

Writ Petition Maintainable At Lucknow Seat If A Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Within The Areas Of 'Oudh': Allahabad High Court

Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300

The High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas.

It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.

Court's Functioning Can't Be Brought To A Grinding Halt On Account Of Bar Association Elections: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3265 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301

The High Court has observed that the work of a Court can not be brought to a grinding halt on account of the fact that the elections of a registered society are to be held.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the Bar Association is not established to obstruct the functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions.

Advocates Shouldn't Advise Clients To Reagitate Matters If There Is No Error Apparent On Face Of Record: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302

In a significant remark, the High Court has said that an advocate should not give such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any other reason why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a civil review application wherein the advocate concerned advised his client to take a chance by filing the instant review application after a period of six years.

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Beating People Who Were Raising Slogan Of 'Jai Sri Ram'

Case title - Irfan v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 303

The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted conditional bail to a man accused of beating people were returning back to their house raising the slogan of 'Jai Sri Ram.

The Bench of Justice Jayant Banerjee ordered the release of the accused (Irfan) on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ with two sureties.

Can't Allow Bail On Parity When Co-Accused Was Granted Bail Without Assigning Any Reasons: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Manish v. State of U.P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 304

The Allahabad High Court has observed that if bail is granted to similarly placed co-accused persons without assigning any reasons, then, on the basis of such bail orders, merely on the ground of parity, the bail application should not be allowed.

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sameer Jain was dealing with the case of one Manish who was seeking bail in connection with a murder case wherein it was alleged that he, along with his parents ablazed a lady by pouring kerosene oil on her.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term In Eight Time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi Murder Case

Case title - Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu v. State of U.P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 305

The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to an accused in connection with the murder of an eight-time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi, who represented India in various international championships.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav took into the record the evidence adduced before it to conclude that Modi was killed by firing made by convict/appellant along with one another accused by using fire arm.

Sections 4 And 5 Of CrPC Do Not Apply To Offences Under IPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mohar Pal And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 306

The High Court held that the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC do not apply to offencs committed under the Indian Penal Code and that these provisions are applicable when any special act comes into operation.

The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and justice Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mohar Pal And Another and observed that Sections 4 and 5 of CrPC pertain to the procedure where the offence under a particular Act is committed.


Next Story