High Courts Weekly Roundup [April 5, 2021 – April 11, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Allahabad High Court Lays Down Procedure & Standard Of Evidence For Enquiry Into Criminal Antecedents Of A Candidate During Selection Process [Sanny Kumar v. State of UP & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot laid down the procedure to be adopted by the competent authority for inquiring into the criminal antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of selection. It elucidated the type of materials that may be considered by such authority, the standard of proof, and other aggravating/ mitigating factors for the purpose. The Bench also made it clear that such inquiry is different from a trial/civil proceeding before a Court of law and hence, competent authority is not always bound by the findings of the court, nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion of the investigation officer. The order came on a writ petition filed by one Sanny Kumar, aggrieved by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in the UP Police, in the backdrop of several criminal cases pending against him. Access full report to read procedure 2. Cases Where Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted Even After Submission Of Charge Sheet: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines A single judge bench comprising of Justice Siddharth observed that non grant of anticipatory bail to an accused only on the ground that charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer or cognizance has been taken by the Court against him under sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. without considering the prima facie veracity of the same, will "not be in the larger interest of justice." It propounded various "appropriate cases" where anticipatory bail can or cannot be granted to an accused apprehending arrest even after submission of the chargesheet or cognizance being taken by the Court. Access full report to read appropriate cases 3. 'Right To Free Speech Not A License To Injure Religious Feelings": Allahabad HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To PFI Member Accused Of Spreading Propaganda Against Ayodhya Ram Temple [Md. Nadeem v. State of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh denied the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of trying to promote enmity between two religious communities by spreading propaganda about the foundation laying ceremony of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. "The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a secular State is not an absolute license to injure and hurt the religious feelings and faiths and beliefs of fellow citizens," it observed. On noting that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, Md. Nadeem, the Bench observed, "A person who takes the risk of dissemination of blasphemous messages is not entitled to get the discretion of the Court exercised in his favour." 4. Allahabad High Court Refuses To Postpone UP Panchayat Elections Due To Covid Surge A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery refused to postpone the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Election, scheduled to be held from 15th April, 2021, in light of the recent surge in Covid-19 cases. It said that adequate health protocol has been notified to be followed at the election booths. Thus, there is no need to stall the electoral process. The Bench further referred to the directions passed by the High Court in In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres case, for the State Government to follow during the entire process of elections. Other developments: [Covid-19] Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Consider Administering Vaccines To All Citizens Including Those Below 45 Yrs Of Age Bombay High Court 1. "Victim's Trauma Doesn't End With Rape" - Bombay High Court Recommends Amendment To Give Victim's 164 Statement The Status Of Examination-In-Chief [Imran Shabbir Gauri v. State of Maharashtra] A division bench of Justices Prasanna B Varale and Shriram M Modak urged the State and Central Governments, to bring amendments under relevant laws and give statements recorded before a magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC, the status of examination-in-chief. It observed that the trauma of a victim does not end with the incident and real life issues may compel a victim to "forgo all the trauma which she had undergone and to take U turn," at the time of trial. 2. POCSO- "Right Of Minor Victims To Participate In The Judicial Process"- Bombay High Court Issues Guidelines A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni issued guidelines for the effective implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and to ensure the right of a child victim to participate in the in the Judicial process is protected. Among other instructions, the Bench directed the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) to give the court reasons in writing if the victim's family, guardian or legal counsel could...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [April 5, 2021 – April 11, 2021]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags