Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 13 To March 19, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

19 March 2023 4:31 PM GMT

  • Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 13 To March 19, 2023

    NOMINAL INDEX Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93 Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94 Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95 Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru....

    NOMINAL INDEX

    Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93

    Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94

    Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95

    Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96

    Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97

    Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98

    In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99

    ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

    Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Former UP MLA Kamlesh Pathak In Gangster Act Case

    Case Title - Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21738 of 2022]

    Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93

    The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly member Kamlesh Pathak in the Gangster Act Case registered against him.

    The bench of Justice Krishna Pahal did not find reasonable grounds for believing that Pathak is not guilty of such offence mentioned in the Gang Chart and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

    The Court also took into account the gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents of Pathak to deny him the benefit of bail.

    Lucknow Terror Conspiracy Case 2021: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Two Alleged Terrorists

    Case title - Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter

    Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94

    The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to two alleged terrorists who were arrested last year in connection with a conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow. Earlier, the NIA court had dismissed their bail plea.

    The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masood and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on bail pleas moved by accused Mohd. Mustaqeem and Mohammad Shakeel in view of the gravity of their 'unblemished' past antecedent and the gravity of the offences for which the trial is framed.

    NRHM Accused Doctor’s Death: Allahabad HC Accepts CBI's Closure Report, Sets Aside Magistrate's Order Summoning 7 Accused To Face Murder Trial

    Case title - Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters

    Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95

    The Bench of Allahabad High Court upheld the CBI inquiry report which found that the death of Dy CMO Dr. Y.S Sachin inside the Lucknow jail in June 2011 was suicidal and not homicidal.

    With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also quashed the summoning order of the magistrate against 7 retired/serving government officers to face the trial in connection with the murder of Dr. Y.S. Sachan and for causing the disappearance of evidence.

    Printed Proforma Not Acceptable: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cognizance Order By Magistrate

    Case- Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

    Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96

    Justice Shamim Ahmed of Allahabad High Court has quashed the cognizance/summon order passed by a Civil Judge finding the order was passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, without application of judicial mind.

    The application was filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of summons order and the entire proceeding of criminal case filed under Sections 376, 313 of IPC.

    No Financial Gain Shown Except For ₹5K: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Activist Atikur Rehman In Hathras Conspiracy 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.

    Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Who Allegedly Made And Shared Video Abusing UP CM Yogi Adityanath

    Case title - Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10173 of 2023]

    Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98

    The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (named Sujeet Sharma) accused of making a video abusing the Chief Minister of the state, Yogi Adityanath, and sharing the same on WhatsApp.

    The order was passed by the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot after the counsel for the accused made a submission that the accused holds constitutional dignitaries in the highest regard and that he did not have any intention of insulting high constitutional dignitaries.

    Allahabad High Court Irked Over Ongoing UP Power Workers Strike, Issues Bailable Warrant Against Union Leaders

    Case title - In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2022]

    Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99

    The Allahabad High Court expressed its displeasure over the ongoing strike by the Uttar Pradesh electricity department employees despite the court's December 2022 order that the power supply should not be disrupted due to the strike by the employees.

    Issuing contempt proceedings against the Employees' Association and its office bearers, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that even if there is a substance in the demand raised by the workers, yet, the entire State cannot be put to severe constraints by jeopardizing overwhelming public interest.

    Next Story