High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 9 – Nov 15]

Allahabad High Court 1. [Tablighi Jamaat] Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To 9 Thailand Nationals [Hasae v. State of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Siddharth granted bail to 9 Thailand Nationals who attended Markaz at Nizamuddin, New Delhi in March 2020. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court granted bail. The allegation against the applicants was that they are residents of Thailand and had come to attend Markaz at Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Thereafter, they went to Shahjahanpur and their host did not gave information on their arrival to Shahjahanpur to the District Magistrate and therefore, they have been implicated in this case. Also Read: Allahabad HC Protects 2 Anti-CAA Protesters From Arrest Till Filing Of Police Report 2. [Dishonour Of Cheque] Once Intention Of Drawer To Not Make Payment Is Clear, Drawee Need Not Wait For 15 Days To File Complaint: Allahabad High Court [Ravi Dixit v. State of UP & Anr.] While interpreting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, a Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker held that once the intention of the party is clear that it does not wish to make payment, the Complainant need not wait for the minimum period 15 days. "The only object of proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is to avoid unnecessary hardship if the drawer wants to make payment," it said. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that even if the accused refuses to make payment, the complainant cannot file a complaint. 3. Allowing Jail Premises To Be Used For Committing Crime Would Put Members Of The Society Under Serious Threat: Allahabad High Court [Imran v. State of UP] "If the premises of a district jail facility are itself so porous and its administration so lax, as may allow such jail premises to be used to commit further crime both outside and inside the jail, the members of the society would be under a serious threat and the entire social and civil structure and the order would be at risk of erosion", observed a Sigle Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh while hearing an anticipatory bail application. In this case, allegations of unauthorised entry in a District Jail, Deoria and of the commission of serious cognizable offence inside the cell of a jail inmate were made against the applicant. "If a citizen is abducted and his abductors have the audacity and the means to take the abducted inside the district jail premises for the purposes of the commission of serious cognizable offence, the only surprise that the Court may express is at such a citizen having found enough courage to lodge an FIR, thereafter. The courage shown would be commendable," the Court said. Also Read: Prisoners Too Are Having Human Rights: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt. To Improve Condition Of Basti District Jail 4. Allahabad High Court Holds That 3 Years Limitation For Filing Claim Petition Is Applicable To All Insurance Policies Irrespective Of Its Terms [Gautam Yadav v. State of UP & Ors.] Giving huge relief to farmers and other marginalised sections of the society, a Division Bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia held that the period of limitation of 75 days for filing a claim under Government insurance schemes, particularly the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary. It noted that such a short period of limitation militates against the 'socio-beneficial' object of the Scheme and is therefore liable to be set aside. The Bench ordered that for filing claim petition, a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased, or from the date when the claim is partly or wholly denied, as also given under the Insurance Act and the Limitation Act, shall be available to the beneficiaries under the impugned scheme. 5. Filing Of Writ Petition Only For Directions To Create Awareness Regarding Certain Laws Is Not Proper: Allahabad High Court [Dr. Syed Rizwan Ahmed v. Union Of India & Anr.] A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Saurabh Lavania observed that the filing of Writ Petition, praying for directions to create awareness regarding certain laws is not proper and that "it appears that such petitions are filed only for the sake of popularity." The Court was of the view that every citizen of the country is presumed to be aware of the laws of the land. But even then, it may be necessary at times to create awareness. It further observed that Courts, in a given case, if necessary, may issue directions for taking steps for creating awareness regarding certain laws, but filing of writ petition only for the above purpose is not proper. 6. "Officers Guilty Of Being Intolerant Towards Reformist Voices": Allahabad HC Quashes FIR Against FB Post Regarding Quarantine Centre Mismanagement...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 9 – Nov 15]

Akshita Saxena

Tags