Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 507 Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508 Raj Kumar v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 509 Shipra Hotels Limited And Anther v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 510 Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511 Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512 Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513 Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514 Ganesh v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 515 Vakeel Quraishi and 2 Ors.v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 516 Hari Singh v. Shyam Bihari And 20 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 517 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court Case title - Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9023 of 2022] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 507 The Allahabad High Court has observed that an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus as it rejected the anticipatory bail plea of one Archana Gupta, who has been accused of grabbing a piece of land property of the first informant on the basis of a forged and fictitious sale deed. "After the filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, she wilfully absented herself before the trial court and due to this, till today trial against the applicant could not commence. Moreover, it is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail," the bench observed. Allahabad High Court Expunges Its Remarks On Varanasi District Judge's Conduct Citing His Bona Fide Intent In Passing Orders Case title - Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10301 of 2022] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508 The Allahabad High Court on Monday expunged its remarks made against the District Judge of Varanasi, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha in its order dated November 21, 2022, in view of his bona fide intent in passing an order (admitting a revision petition without condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act). The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar expunged the observations made in the last fourth paragraph of his order dated 21st November 2022 regarding the conduct of District Judge, Varanasi Dr. Vishvesha. The relevant paragraph (now expunged) is reproduced below: "In the present case, the ordersheet reflects that the District Judge, Varanasi is in the habit of committing impropriety in discharge of his judicial function." Allahabad High Court Acquits Rape Convict Who Spent 18 Years In Jail With Remission Case title - Raj Kumar v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7006 of 2009] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 509 The Allahabad High Court acquitted a rape convict languishing in jail for more than 18 years (with remission) as it found that neither the medical evidence nor the statement of prosecution witnesses supported the case against the rape convict. "Once we analyze the evidence available on record, we find that neither the medical evidence nor the victim or her father in their deposition before the Court have supported the prosecution case. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore can not be read in isolation so as to form a basis for the conviction of the accused-appellant when the victim herself has not supported her previous stand in her deposition made before the Court," the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad remarked as it disagreed with the judgment and order of the trial court convicting Raj Kumar (appellant). [S.14 SARFAESI Act] CMM/DM Not Required To Give Notice To Borrower Before Taking Possession Of Secured Asset: Allahabad HC Case title - Shipra Hotels Limited And Anther v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others and other connected matters Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 510 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate acting under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not required to give notice to the borrower at the stage of the decision or passing order pertaining to taking possession of the secured asset. The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed that since the proceedings before the CMM/ DM under Section 14 of the Act are ministerial in nature, therefore, no opportunity for a hearing is required to be given to the...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags