High Courts Weekly Roundup [Oct 26 - Nov 01]

Week commencing from October 26, 2020 Till November 1, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1. UP Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act Being Misused Against Innocent Persons; Any Recovered Meat Is Shown As Beef : Allahabad High Court [Rahmu @ Rahmuddin v. State of UP] While hearing the bail application of one Rahmuddin, accused of cow slaughter and sale of beef under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the said Act, the Single Bench of Justice Siddharth expressed concern over frequent misuse of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, for implicating innocent persons. It observed, "Act is being misused against innocent persons. Whenever any meat is recovered, it is normally shown as cow meat (beef) without getting it examined or analyzed by the Forensic Laboratory. In most of the cases, meat is not sent for analysis. Accused persons continue in jail for an offence that may not have been committed at all and which is triable by Magistrate Ist Class, having maximum sentence upto 7 years." 2. Allahabad High Court Grants Protection From Arrest To Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui & 4 Family Members In Molestation Case [Minajhuddin Siddqi & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] The Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Kumar Pachori granted protection from arrest to actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui and his three family members in connection to a molestation case filed by his estranged wife, Aliya. The relief was not granted in favour of Siddiqui's third brother, Minajhuddin, as there was a specific allegation against him of molesting a minor child in the family in 2012. The Court said, "Considering that specific allegation of child abuse is against the petitioner no. 1 (Minajhuddin) only and the rest of the petitioners have been implicated by levelling general allegation, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by providing that in so far as the petitioner no. 2 (Faiyajuddin Siddiqi); petitioner no. 3 (Ayajuddin Siddiqi); petitioner no. 4 (Smt. Mehrunisha Siddiqi); and petitioner no. 5 (Nawajuddin Siddiqi) are concerned, the investigation shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but they shall not be arrested in the above case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC…" 3. 'Juvenile Has Put Society On Alarm; Made Children Feel Unsafe' Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Juvenile Accused Of Raping 6 Yr Old Girl [Akash @ Nirmal Mishra (Juvenile) v. State Of UP & Anr.] The Bench of Justice JJ Munir refused to interfere with the order of Special Judge (POCSO), Kanpur Nagar, dismissing the criminal appeal of a Juvenile accused of raping a 6-year-old girl. "The case in hand shows that the revisionist by his action, if true, has put the society and its surroundings on alarm. His actions have led to a situation, where prima facie no child of tender years, and more than that the parents or the guardians of a young child, would feel safe during their daily routine, when there is nothing otherwise to call extra caution," the Court observed. 4. Govt. Must Be Sensitive While Imposing Severe Punishment Of Dismissal Pursuant To Disciplinary Action: Allahabad High Court [Board of Basic Education & Anr. v. Arvid Prakash Dwivedi & Ors.] While refusing to interfere with the Single Bench Judgment, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma observed that "the government authorities must be quite sensitive while imposing the severe punishment of dismissal as a consequence of disciplinary action." In this case, the Petitioner, a Head Master of a Junior High School was placed under suspension and was subjected to disciplinary action for availing benefit of two educational certificates. "It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the respondent petitioner could have obtained two qualification simultaneously and the respondent-petitioner as such possessed requisite qualification to hold the post of Assistant Teacher as well as the further promotional post," the Court observed. 5. 'Religious Conversion Just For The Purpose Of Marriage Is Unacceptable': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Of Married Couple [Priyanshi & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] The Single Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi dismissed a writ petition seeking police protection filed by a married couple after it noted that the girl was a Muslim by birth and had converted her religion to Hinduism, just a month before the marriage was solemnized. This clearly reveals that the conversion has taken place only for the purpose of marriage, the Court said while referring to a 2014 judgment in Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., in which it was observed that conversion just for the purpose of marriage is unacceptable. Bombay High Court 1. [SSR Medial Trial] 'We Would Like Media Not To Cross Boundaries': Bombay High Court Mulls Guidelines For...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Oct 26 - Nov 01]

Akshita Saxena

Tags