High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 9, 2021 To August 15, 2021]

Allahabad High Court Collusion In Bail Hearing Through Forged Vakalatnama : Allahabad High Court Deplores 'Downfall In Moral Values' Of Advocacy [Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh] In a bail hearing before the Allahabad High Court, it was revealed that the advocates appearing on behalf of the accused and the complainant were acting in collusion, wherein the counsel for the complainant had filed forged vakalatnama at the directions of the counsel for the accused. The counsel for the accused had 'arranged' a forged vakalatnama and engaged a lawyer to represent the accused to record no-objection to grant bail. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the said action by long-standing counsels is highly deplorable, attacking the sanctity of the profession and the institution. As a remedial measure, the Court noted that a self-attested copy of any identity proof (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the person's mobile number should also be filed along with the Vakalatnama. Cutting Beef Due To Poverty, Unemployment Or Hunger In Secrecy Not 'Public Order' Issue: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention [Parvez Thru His Brother Imran v. State Of UP] A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav quashed a detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 against 3 men who have been accused of cutting small pieces of beef for selling purposes in a house in secrecy. It observed that the case of the petitioners/detenues of cutting cow beef in pieces in the secrecy of their own house can at best be described as a matter affecting law and order and not public order. "…the petitioners and co-accused were mutely arrested when they were found cutting beef in the wee hours of the morning in the house of the petitioners. We also do not know whether the cause was poverty, lack of employment or hunger, which may have compelled the petitioners and the other co-accused to take such a step," observed the Court. Specify Steps Taken To Control Noise Pollution Through Two, Four Wheelers With Modified Silencers: Allahabad HC Asks UP Govt [Noise Pollution Thru Modified Silencers (Suo Moto)(P.I.L.) v. State Of U.P. & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to file an affidavit indicating the steps taken to control the menace of noise pollution generated through vehicles particularly two-wheelers and four-wheelers with modified silencers. It directed the State Government, DGP, UP, Chairman, State Pollution Control Board, and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Lucknow to file their replies and posted the matter for further hearing on August 27. Comparing the menace of noise pollution with the legend of Hydra, the Allahabad High Court had, last month, took suo moto cognizance of Noise pollution generated through modified silencers specifically Bullet Bikes, and the other two wheelers. Lodging Of An FIR Under 'UP Gangsters Act' On The Basis Of A Single Case Is Valid & Permissible: Allahabad High Court A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal and Justice Pritinker Diwaker observed that the lodging of a first information report under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 even on the basis of involvement of a person in a single case, is valid and permissible. It relied on the landmark rulings of the Allahabad High Court on this subject matter to reach this conclusion. The Court observed thus while dismissing a bunch of 12 writ petitions filed by Ritesh Kumar alias Rikki and others raising the following question: "Whether a first information report under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Gangsters Act'] can be lodged and is maintainable on the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s) / accused in a single previous case." Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea By Lawyer Seeking Home Delivery of Liquor [Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr.] A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma dismissed a PIL which sought a direction to the State for framing necessary policy for home delivery of liquor. It noted that the petitioner did not cite reasons like avoiding overcrowding rather it relied on argument of increase in revenue of the State. "Petitioner has shown its concern to increase the revenue of the State and other aspect which includes purchase of liquor even by those who may be shy in making purchase from the shop. The reasons given is not to avoid overcrowding or to maintain social distancing to follow the Covid-19 protocol rather it is for different reasons then observed by the Apex Court", said the Bench. "No 'Printed Proforma' While Passing Judicial Orders": Allahabad High Court Asks District Judges In UP To Inform Judicial Officers [Pankaj Jaiswal v. State of UP &...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 9, 2021 To August 15, 2021]

Live Law News Network

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 9, 2021 To August 15, 2021]

Live Law News Network

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers