High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing From August 3, 2020 To August 9, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1) Social Distancing Seems To Be An 'Empty Shibboleth'; Treatment System At Government Hospitals Has 'Collapsed': Allahabad HC Raps UP Govt [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent] A Division bench comprised of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar rapped the UP Government for its failure to implement the social distancing norms in the state. "Neither the Government is looking interested in implementing the rule that two individuals should remain two yards away and wear masks nor the people of our State are interested in following the above rule," the Court said. The bench also took note that the Government had failed to provide timely reports of Covid tests, and there were indications that treatment system at Government hospitals had "collapsed," as people were getting themselves treated in private hospitals rather than Government hospitals. 2) [Buses For Ferrying Migrants] Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Priyanka Gandhi's Personal Secretary Sandeep Singh [Sandeep Singh v. State of UP & Anr.] A bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Sandeep Singh, personal secretary of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, in connection to alleged forging of a list of 1,000 buses that the Congress Party arranged for the UP Government, to bring back migrant workers, after looking at the "triviality" of the offences alleged. 3) Allahabad HC Seeks State's Response In Habeas Corpus Plea For Release Of Dr. Kafeel Khan [Nuzhat Perween v. State of UP & Anr.] A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Deepak Verma asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to "positively file" its reply in the habeas corpus plea filed against alleged illegal detention of Dr. Kafeel Khan, by the next date of hearing. The present habeas corpus plea was moved by Khan's mother, Nuzhat Perween. Notably, Khan had been granted bail by the court of CJM, Aligarh on February 10. However, he has been languishing in jail under the NSA Act, which was slapped on him by the Aligarh District Magistrate on February 15. 4) How FIR U/s 66A IT Act Has Been Registered? Allahabad HC Pulls Up UP Police; Seeks Explanation From Mathura SSP [Mohan Singh v. State of UP & Ors.] The Division Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Raj Beer Singh directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to file his personal affidavit explaining as to how the F.I.R. has been registered under section 66A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The case is next posted on 26th August, 2020. "As per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India 2015 (5) SCC 1, F.I.R. under section 66A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 cannot be registered, as the same has been declared to be ultravires," the bench remarked. Also Read: UP Police Continues To Register FIR Under 'Unconstitutional' Section 66A IT Act ; Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash It Andhra Pradesh High Court 1) Mitigating Circumstances In Favour Of Accused Dilute Gravity In Relation To Their Role: AP HC Grants Bail To LG Polymers' CEO, 11 Others In Vizag Gas Tragedy [PPC Mohan Rao v. State of AP] Bench of Justice M. Venkataramana granted bail to as many as 12 from the management of LG Polymers, including the CEO, accused in connection with the Vizak Gas Leak tragedy in May. "Mitigating factors dent the gravity to certain extent", ruled the Court. "It is clear from the material placed by the prosecution that at possibly the earliest point of time, the company had brought to the notice of the district administration, its difficulty in managing the bulk storage of Styrene in view of the lockdown directive", observed the court, adding that it is a prima facie inference to draw, in order to assess the gravity of the instance. Bombay High Court 1) Merely Because DNA Report Does Not Establish Paternity, Is No Ground For Release On Bail; Bombay HC Rejects Plea Of Accused In Gangrape Of Minor [Vaibhav Bhanudas Ubale v. State of Maharashtra] Single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that merely because the DNA report of a child born after a gangrape does not establish paternity of the accused, it does not mean that the accused can be released on bail and rejected the bail application filed by one Vaibhav Ubale, who is accused of raping a minor girl along with two others. "The charge-sheet contains sufficient material against the applicant. The case against the applicant is serious one of committing gang rape by three persons and taking advantage of a situation of a poor helpless victim girl. The applicant has indulged into an act of rape. The mere fact that the DNA report does not support the paternity is not ground to release the applicant at this stage," the bench observed. 2) Any Grievances Regarding Lack ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

Akshita Saxena

Tags