High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7, 2021 – June 13, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Disregard Shown By Senior Officials To Court's Orders Has Grave Consequences On The Rule Of Law In Country: Allahabad High Court [Sanjay @ Mausam v. State of UP] A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the disregard shown by the senior-most officials to the orders passed by the Court has grave consequences on the rule of law in the country. It further remarked that it has repeatedly noticed the failure of the police authorities to provide instructions to the learned Government Advocate of bail applications from time to time. "Once the police authorities have been alerted to the fact that there failure to provide instructions in time strikes at the root of law. It often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail," the Court added. Also Read: Accused Has Right To Have His Bail Plea Heard In Reasonable Time: Allahabad HC Seeks Time Bound Procedure For Supplying Instructions To Govt Advocates 2. Woman's Conversion To Islam Not To Be A Relevant Fact While Ensuring Protection To Interfaith Couple: Allahabad High Court [Yashi Devi & Anr. v. State Of UP & Ors.] Dealing with the plea of an inter-religious couple who alleged that private respondent/s is interfering with their marital life and liberty, a Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai clarified that the fact of the petitioner (Girl) having converted to Islam would not be a relevant factor while ensuring that there is no interference in the liberty of the petitioners. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Court observed that Law is settled that it is the right of couples to live peacefully without any interference in case they are major. It was hearing the plea of a Girl (aged 20 years who converted to Islam) and Man (aged 40 years) and they sought direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and liberty. They claimed that they are major and have solemnized marriage out of their own free will and also alleged that private respondent/s is interfering with their marital life and liberty. 3. Gram Panchayat Polls- "Evident That Mismanagement Was Flashed On Twitter By Him": Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail To Journalist [Shiv Prasad @ Shiv Prasad Harijan & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr.] A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh granted interim Bail to a Journalist and others who have been accused of trying to destroy the ballot box and firing during the Gram Panchayat Polls in Uttar Pradesh. It observed that: "It is evident that mismanagement of the authorities was flash(ed) on twitter by the applicant No.1 who is the journalist and other applicant is related to him, therefore, the applicants are entitled to interim bail." 4. Allegation Of Forceful Conversion- After UP Ordinance Came Into Being She Suddenly Got Aware Of Her Rights: Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man [Munna Khan @ Asfaq Khan v. State of UP] Doubting the conduct of the Victim who alleged that the Bail applicant used to ravish her and started compelling her to change her religion, a Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi granted bail to the accused. It observed that the bail applicant and the victim were in a relationship for the last four years when there was no ordinance [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020] and also there was no objection or resistance from the side of the victim to the relationship. "All of a sudden, after coming this Ordinance into existence, she got aware about her rights. Her mental thinking exposes about her conduct," added the Court. 5. Case Registered Under Cow Slaughter Act Based On Alleged Conversation Over-Heard By Police: Allahabad HC Grants Bail, Seeks SP's Explanation [Suraj v. State of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin granted Bail to a person accused of offences under UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 while noting that the case was registered on the basis of alleged conversation of the applicant which was overheard by the police party. "The culpability of the applicant under the Act,1955 is clearly not attracted. Consequently, it is prima facie apparent that Section 3 and 8 of the Act,1955 have wrongly been invoked against the applicant," the Court held. It also directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file his personal affidavit, specifically adverting to the averments made in the bail application as well as indicating as to how the cognizance of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act, 1955 have been invoked against the applicant. Other developments: Allahabad High Court Amends Its Rules To Allow Use Of A4 Size PaperAllahabad High Court Rejects Samajwadi Party MP Azam Khan's Pre Arrest Bail Application Andhra Pradesh High Court 1. Centre's Allocation Not Sufficient To Treat Black Fungus Patients: Andhra Pradesh High Court Seeks Centre's Response Observing that Liposomal...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7, 2021 – June 13, 2021]

Akshita Saxena

Tags