Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
1 May 2023 4:55 PM GMT
NOMINAL INDEX Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2 Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3 Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4 Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5 Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others...
NOMINAL INDEX
Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3
Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4
Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Melvin Saldanha And Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Pintu Kumar vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Devesh Verma vs. Christ Church College Throu Principal Hazratganj Lko.And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Vaibhav Kumar Pandey And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Kailash vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Paras Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Mokhtar Ansari vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Asif Khaliq vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Saumitra Anand and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Adarsh Bhushan vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Arvind Kejriwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Nafisa And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 24
State of U.P. vs. Mukhtar Ansari S/O Subhan Ullah Ansari 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Manjeet Alias Pintoo vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Vijay Masih (Pastor) vs. State Of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Sidhique Kappan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Nizamuddin Khan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Digvijay Chaube vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Mohd. Aslam vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Mohd. Ahmad Khan @ Ahmad Khan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Sajid @ Sajid Pardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Krishna Kumar (As Per Fir And The Charge Sheet Krishna Kumar Naayi ) And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Lokendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Dr.Priyanka Garg vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Nandini Sachan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Rajnish Chaurasia Alias Rajnesh Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Javed Mohammad @ Pump vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Lalita Gupta vs. High Court Of Judicature Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Fuzail vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu vs. Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Swami Chinmiyanand Saraswati Pupil vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 49
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 53
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan @ Raziwan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Chantara vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Suneeta Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assistant Director 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Salman Khurshid vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Kushwaha Mahasabha and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Santosh Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And 4 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 63
M/S Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Prem Narayan Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Anees vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Jose Prakash George And 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others vs. State Of UP and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 70
M/s Radha Fragrance versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Javed Mohammad @ Pump @ Javed Ahmad vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Aditya Raj Verma vs. State Of U.P. . And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Govind Prakash Pandey vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. India Represented By Its Assistant Director Lko. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Shakila Khatun vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Rajeev Bansal Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Umakant Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Ali @ Ali Ahmad @ Mohd Ali Ahmad vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And 15 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Kalika Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Rajesh Chandra @ Rakesh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 87
U.P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha.U.P.Officer Shri N.P.M.Vidy.Raebareli Thru. President Ankur Chaudhari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 89
X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Ramu Mallah vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Purushottam Chaudhary vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. The Superintendent Of Police Cbi/Acb Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98
In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Saroj Kumari vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Isha Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Khalid Azeem @ Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Shrey Singh vs. Union Of India And 9 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mahendra Pal And Ors. vs. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Edu.Andors along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Deepak vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Agra Development Authority v. Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd. FAO No. 1033 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Mohammad Tariq Qashmi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 113
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Case title - Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 8892 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Noting that there is always a presumption about the correctness of an exam answer key, the Allahabad High Court observed that in the event of doubt over the correctness of an answer key, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
With this, the bench of Justice J. J. Munir dismissed a writ plea of one Gyan Prakash Singh challenging his non-selection as an Assistant Professor (Chemistry) to aided nongovernment colleges, engaged in imparting higher education, in the competitive exam conducted by the UP Higher Education Service Commission (UPHESC).
Case title - Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42581 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The Allahabad High Court directed the National Medical Commission (erstwhile Medical Council of India) to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of two doctors after prima facie finding that they prepared a false medical report in collusion with the injured person, so as to cause wrongful harm to the accused persons.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the Doctors (Lalit Kaushik and Imran) working with V-Bros Hospitals, Saharanpur after noting that the report prepared by them regarding the injury sustained by the injured person was inherently improbable.
Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The Allahabad High Court took exception to a judgment delivered by Sessions Court, Kanpur Dehat in which the rape victim’s name was mentioned and said that the Judge should be careful while dealing with such matters in the future.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal said it is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding.
“Before parting with the case it is necessary to mention that despite Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts of not disclosing the name of the victim of offence of rape, the trial court has specifically mentioned the name of the victim/prosecutrix while recording her evidence in court and at various places in the impugned judgment. Despite various reminders by the Apex Court about it, the trial court appears to have been ignorant about it,” the Court remarked in its order.
Case title - Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7478 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a police constable who was convicted in 2018 by a trial Court for allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor girl, after finding that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also observed that there were major improvements in the testimony of the victim and hence, the trial court was not justified in returning the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant.
Case title - Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 787 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband not just till the completion of the ‘Iddat’ period, but for the rest of her life until she remarries.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while setting aside an order of the family court wherein a divorced Muslim woman was found entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat.
WEEKLY UPDATES
Case title - In Re Of The Honble High Court vs. Bharat Singh (Advocate) [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 11 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has debarred an advocate, who misbehaved, insulted, and abused a lady judge posted in a court under the Bulandshahr Judgeship, from practicing law before the UP Courts. The Court has also ordered him to appear in person before HC on January 12.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad passed this order on Monday while dealing with a suo moto criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the HC on the reference made to it by the lady Judicial Officer posted at the outlying court at Khurja of Bulandshahr Judgeship.
Case title - Nar Singh And Others vs. State Of U.P.And Others [WRIT - C No. - 37500 of 1999]
Taking exception to the delay in the arrival of files to the Courts from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, the Allahabad High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) & LR, UP Govt to introduce the biometric system in the office of CSC, Allahabad within two weeks so as to ensure that the office employees reach in time.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal ordered thus while hearing a writ plea wherein the Standing Counsel appearing for the State made prayer for adjourning the matter on the ground that his file has not come from the CSC's office.
Case title - Yogendra Kumar Sagar And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And Others [WRIT - A No. - 8966 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has directed the state government that until further orders, it shall not stop the salary of its employees only on the ground that they have not opted for National Pension System.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order on Tuesday while dealing with a writ plea moved by certain state employees (Yogendra Kumar Sagar and others) challenging the state government’s notification for mandatory joining of the National Pension System.
Case title - Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15459 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court took an exception to the ‘fashion’ of making irresponsible insinuations about the judiciary or its officers and observed that this unholy practice has to be whole-heartedly discouraged and deplored by every responsible person in society.
The Court also said that we are presently living in a democracy in its ugliest form, where nobody has got any regard for any institution.
Case title - Melvin Saldanha And Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 604 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court set aside a 'non speaking' order of the trial court dismissing the discharge plea moved by the Principal and PT Teacher of a Lucknow-based School in a case registered against them under Section 305 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th Student by giving him corporal punishment.
In its January 6 order, the bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the trial court, while dismissing the discharge plea, had not examined the facts of the case coupled with the requirement of offences under Section 107 (Abetment of a thing), 305 (Abetment of suicide of child or insane person) IPC and Section 227 (Discharge) CrPC.
Case title - Pintu Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37170 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of raping a physically challenged woman on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, refusing to marry her.
“Such criminal tendencies growing in the society must be nipped in the bud to convey a strong message to the culprits in the society,” the bench of Justice Saroj Yadav observed as it called the alleged offence, a ‘serious’ one.
Case title - Devesh Verma vs. Christ Church College Throu Principal Hazratganj Lko.And Ors [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court observed that the employees of a private educational institution do not have the right to invoke the writ powers of the High Court in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while denying relief to the petitioner, one Devesh Verma, who was removed from the post of Lecturer in Christ Church College, Lucknow in July 1992 after he misbehaved with the college principal.
Case title - Vaibhav Kumar Pandey And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 9 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which prayed for a declaration that a rape accused may seek 'Default Bail', in case a chargesheet is not filed against him within two months of lodging of FIR.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar dismissed the plea for being ‘misconceived’ as it noted that such a prayer need not be addressed in a public interest litigation.
Case title - Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26037 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate’s order, rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CrPC or converting it into a complaint, is not an interlocutory order and the aggrieved party can prefer revision against it under Section 397 CrPC.
The court also added that such an order of the magistrate cannot be challenged in a plea moved under Section 482 CrPC as an alternative remedy of filing a revision under section 397 CrPC is available to the aggrieved party.
Case title - Kailash vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to two men for killing a man with a country-made pistol in the year 2005.
The court said that the act of the accused carrying a firearm weapon at the place of occurrence was itself indicative of their intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also noted that the nature of the injury and the body part, where the injuries were sustained, indicated that the Accused-Appellant fired on the deceased with the intention of causing injury as is likely to cause death or the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Case title – Paras Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2306 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning losses of crops of farmers due to the movement of wild boar and blue bull by noting that the Government is seized of the matter.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar noted that the Government is seized of the matter and is taking steps to minimize the losses, and hence, it was not necessary to monitor the matter at this stage.
Case title - Mokhtar Ansari vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11290 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari in connection with a case under UP Gangster Act registered in 2020 while considering the allegations and his rich criminal horoscope.
Observing that if Ansari is not a gangster, then in this country no one can be said to be a gangster, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that he and his gang members accumulated enormous wealth by striking fear and terror in the minds and hearts of the people and his freedom would be in peril of the law-abiding citizens of this Court.
Case Title: Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The High Court of Allahabad Bench comprising of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit, while adjudicating a petition filed in Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., has held that approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, does not ipso facto absolve the surety/guarantor of the Corporate Debtor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract of guarantee.
Case title - Asif Khaliq vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 16263 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on a man who filed a writ petition making false averments and suppressing material facts.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji directed the petitioner (Asif Khaliq) to deposit the cost with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
Case title - Saumitra Anand and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1891 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court said that the issue regarding the rational use of paper in all judicial filings in all Courts/judicial forums in the State of UP is engaging the attention of the Court on the administrative size.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir said so while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, inter alia, urging for use of double-printed A4 paper in courts. The Court has, however, welcomed the petitioners to submit suggestions in this regard.
Case title - Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29318 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court has observed that at the stage of bail, it is only to be seen whether provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been prima facie complied with or not and it cannot be precisely ascertained whether compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been substantially made or not, as the same can only be ascertained during the trial.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while dealing with the plea of an NDPS Accused seeking bail on the ground that at the time of search and recovery, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
Case title - Adarsh Bhushan vs. State of U.P [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 576 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court directed the private schools to adjust/pay back the excess money (15% of the total fee) that was charged from students during the COVID Pandemic period (2020-21 session).
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir ordered thus while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved parents from all over the State seeking regulation of fees in all government and private schools in Uttar Pradesh.
Case title - Arvind Kejriwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No.42 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Sultanpur Court's order rejecting Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's discharge plea filed in connection with a 2014 case registered against him allegedly saying "those who believe in 'Khuda' won't be pardoned by 'Khuda' if they vote for BJP".
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan said that it appeared that Kejriwal is threatening the voters in the name of Khuda knowing fully well that if he uses the term ‘Khuda’, some set of voters belonging to different religions might have severely been influenced.
Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8536 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a person against whom a warrant has been issued and, is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrants and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code have been initiated against him, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while denying anticipatory bail to three persons (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and wife of the deceased) accused of abetting the suicide of a man.
Case title - Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12343 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of luring 90 Hindus to convert to Christianity by putting them under undue influence, coercion by playing fraud, and promise of easy money, etc.
Stressing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma denied the relief as it did not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
Case title - Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused to quash proceedings against the accused persons in an attempt to murder case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the injured victims as it called the offence 'against the society'.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the crime was against the society and not against the injured sons of the informant alone and, therefore, the informant and his sons have no authority to pardon the accused persons.
"The acts allegedly committed by the petitioners (accused persons) involve firing gun shots in broad day light hitting two persons in their chests and such offence is a very serious offence and the material on record, namely, the medico-legal examination report of the injured persons and the statements recorded during investigation, fully support the FIR allegations," the Court remarked as it dismissed a Section 482 CrPC plea moved by the accused.
Case title - Nafisa And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-14344/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash FIR against and stay the arrest of the 5 women members of the alleged 'Nafisa Gang' which is allegedly involved in filing false rape/SC-ST Act cases against innocent persons for the purpose of extracting money.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar observed that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, which requires a detailed investigation to be carried out by the Authorities.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Mukhtar Ansari S/O Subhan Ullah Ansari [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 903 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the March 2022 order of a Trial Court in UP's Ghazipur directing the SSP of Banda District Jail to grant 'Superior Class' in prison to 'known gangster' and former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari.
Calling Ansari a dreaded criminal and a bahubali, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Ghazipur as not only without jurisdiction but also unsustainable on merits. Consequently, the order of the Ghazipur was set aside.
Case title - Manjeet Alias Pintoo vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59616 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court directed the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to ensure compliance of its 2022 order in the case of 'Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 435' wherein it issued several positive directions for the State regarding providing access to legal aid to undertrials.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was prompted to pass this order while hearing the bail plea of a kidnapping accused who remained in jail as he did not have access to legal aid as he belong to the economically poor strata of society.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To A Pastor Accused Of Luring 90 Hindus To Convert To Christianity
Case title - Vijay Masih (Pastor) vs. State Of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57506 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a pastor who has been accused of luring 90 Hindus to convert to Christianity by putting them under undue influence, coercion by playing fraud, and promise of easy money, etc.
Taking note of the records of the case, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that it appeared that on the basis of general allegations, he was made accused in the present matter along with 35 named persons, and out of 35 persons 6 persons have already been released on bail and thus, he was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 161 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court has directed the special NIA Court in Lucknow, trying the UAPA Case against Kerala Based journalist Siddique Kappan, to decide his discharge plea AFRESH after giving an opportunity of hearing to his counsel. With this, the Court also quashed the order of the NIA court's framing charges against him.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order on Monday after observing that the Trial Court had, while proceeding to frame charges, neither accepted, nor rejected Kappan’s discharge plea, and prima facie no opportunity for a hearing was granted to his counsel.
Case title - Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23675 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings pending for 18 years against a man accused of committing electricity theft by terming the inordinate delay in the trial as oppressive and unwarranted.
Holding that the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused-Madan Mohan Saxena had been violated in the case, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain quashed the chargesheet and entire case proceedings under Section 39/49B of the Electricity Act pending against him.
Case title - Nizamuddin Khan vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1461 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Nizamuddin Khan, the State President of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) in the UAPA case over his alleged connection with the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) and involvement in anti-national activities.
Khan, who has been booked under sections 295A, 109, 120B, 201 I.P.C., and section 13 of UAPA, was arrested on September 27, 2022, from Aligarh allegedly with objectionable material and unconstitutional literature.
Case title - Digvijay Chaube vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10053 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail (till submission of the police report, if any) to a man accused of inciting the public to demolish the Gyanvapi Mosque.
The bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma passed this order earlier this month on the anticipatory bail plea of accused Digvijay Chaube, who has been booked under sections 153A, 295A 505(2) I.P.C.
“In the event of arrest of the applicant- Digvijay Chaube, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned…,” the Court ordered.
Case title - Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 216 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a right that may be denied only in exceptional circumstances or in such circumstances where the order sheet reveals that the other side/ party is habitual in seeking adjournments for one reason or another.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while setting aside an order of the trial court wherein the opportunity of cross-examination for the applicant (accused in a Gangster Act Case) of a prosecution witness was closed despite the fact that the applicant had moved an adjournment application on the ground that his counsel was busy in some other court.
Case title - Mohd. Aslam vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a person convicted in the year 2004 for allegedly killing 4 persons of a family by mixing poison in their meat as it did not find credible evidence against him.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav acquitted one Mohd. Aslam as it noted that though it was painful that four persons of the family were done to death by poisoning, however, the real culprit of the crime could not be brought to book.
Cae title - Mohd. Ahmad Khan @ Ahmad Khan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36651 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court has quashed entire criminal proceedings against Rajyasabha MP and Congress leader pertaining to the 2019 Model Code of Conduct Violation case registered against him.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh quashed the entire proceedings of the case against Pratapgarhi and others, the cognizance order dated 02.07.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 10.10.2022 passed by Court of ACJM-04, District Moradabad.
Case title - Sajid @ Sajid Pardhan vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50360 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 35
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of uploading some objectionable material on his Facebook account with regard to the Chief Minister of the state, Yogi Adityanath.
The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order as it noted that the offences under which the accused has been challaned are having maximum punishment of three years and the that he is in jail since September 2022 i.e. for about more than three months.
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35405 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 36
In a partial relief for former Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister and Senior Samajwadi Party Leader Azam Khan, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Firozabad Court taking cognizance of offence under Section 153-A IPC in the 2007 'provocative' and 'communal' speech case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is a serious offence, but the statute has created a bar for taking cognizance for such an offence unless there is a prior sanction of the competent authority i.e. State Government, which was not obtained in the present case.
Case title - Krishna Kumar (As Per Fir And The Charge Sheet Krishna Kumar Naayi ) And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 677 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing the cognizance order of the Court of ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli summoning a man accused of committing offences under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 16 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Case Title – Lokendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 39558 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the defect of non-filing an affidavit in support of an election petition at the stage of filing of an election petition cannot be cured by way of filing the subsequent affidavit.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while confirming an order of an election tribunal that rejected an election petition filed under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the ground of non-filing of the affidavit.
Case Title – Dr.Priyanka Garg vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical And Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 23384 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the State Medical Department initiating an inquiry against an associate professor working in a state medical college after keeping her resignation file pending for 7 months.
Taking into account the plight of the professor of medicine, who resigned as she was facing difficulty in handling her child while continuing her job with the State Government, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary stressed that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible.
Case title - Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 137 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court has observed that for the purposes of constituting an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done, and not the injuries.
The bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed thus while upholding an order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the plea of discharge filed by a man accused of committing offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
"Section 308 IPC consists of two parts. The first is related to no-injury cases while the second part deals with where the hurt is caused. So what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done and not the injuries," the Court observed.
Case title - Nandini Sachan vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38967 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court observed that the freedom of expression does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility on social media nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language.
"...it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that social media is a global platform for the exchange of thoughts, opinions, and ideas. The internet and social media have become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language," the bench of Justice Shehar Kumar Yadav said.
Allahabad High Court Entertains And Allows A Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed On Fresh Grounds
Case title - Rajnish Chaurasia Alias Rajnesh Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 31 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court entertained and allowed a second anticipatory bail plea filed on fresh grounds.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar granted anticipatory bail [till the filing of police report u/s 173(2) CrPC] to one Rajnish Chaurasia who has been accused of inter alia causing hurt to the first informant in May 2022.
With this, the bench rejected the contention raised by AGA that the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant was not maintainable on the ground that the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493, ruled that a second and successive anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
Case title - Javed Mohammad @ Pump vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53834 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the Welfare Party Of India Leader Javed Mohammad who is the prime accused in the June 2022 Prayagraj Violence case. He has been accused of leading the mob which allegedly damaged public property and set police vehicles on fire.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that from the perusal of the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation, it appears that general allegations were made against all the accused persons including the applicant.
'Hisab Kitab' Remark| 'Acts Promoting Divisiveness Impinge Upon Pluralism': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLA Abbas Ansari
Case title - Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Application U/S 482 No.25838 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Hisab-Kitab Remark case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that considering the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting by Ansari, at this stage it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.
"The scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and it should be exercised in exceptional cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose any offence. Whether the offence under Section 153-A IPC gets attracted or not, would depend on the quality of evidence led by the prosecution during the trial. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings or the charge sheet," the Court's order reads.
Case Title: Lalita Gupta vs. High Court Of Judicature Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And Others [WRIT - A No. - 672 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to an unsuccessful candidate who appeared for an Interview of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2020 and challenged the final select list after her name did not appear in the list.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that she took a calculated chance of being successful in the interview, but when the result was not favorable to her, she challenged the select list and thus, her writ plea was not maintainable.
Man Accused Of Selling Sugarcane Juice Adulterated With Beef Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title – Fuzail vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 397 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Fuzail who has been accused of selling sugarcane juice which was adulterated with beef.
The bench of Justice Deepak Verma granted him bail keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577.
Accused Fuzail, booked under Sections 323, 504, 295-A I.P.C. and Section 3, 5 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, had moved the High Court seeking bail on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive.
Case title - Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu vs. Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7522 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet in each and every case where an FIR has been lodged alleging the commission of offence under the SC/ST Act 1989.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori further clarified that Section 4(2)(e) of the 1989 Act and Rule 7(2) of the SC-ST Act Rules 1995 only enjoins upon the IO to file such a charge sheet where, based on evidence collected during the investigation, the offence is made out.
Case Title - Swami Chinmiyanand Saraswati Pupil vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11900 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Union minister Chinmayanand Saraswati in connection with the Shahjahanpur Rape Case 2011 after the state did not oppose his bail plea.
In fact, the Counsel for the complainant filed a counter affidavit stating that the complainant has no objection, whatsoever, if Chinmayanand is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Case title - Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 50
While dealing with the writ plea of a man accused of burning the copies of Ramcharitmanas, the Allahabad High Court directed the police authorities to follow the mandate of Section 41A CrPC and also the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari however denied to quash the FIR filed against Accused Mahendra Pratap Singh who has been booked under Sections 120-B, 142, 143, 153-A, 295, 295-A, 298, 504, 505(2), 506 I.P.C.
Case title - Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of a Session Court awarding life imprisonment to 2 persons after finding them guilty of committing gang rape against a 7-year-old girl in the year 2010.
Refusing to reduce the sentence awarded to the convicts, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma observed thus:
“It is not a case of rape by juvenile, a single accused with a mature lady or with a girl who is on the verge of attaining the age of puberty or majority. The victim was not knowing even the nature of the offence. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, age of the victim, age of the accused persons and that it is a case of gang rape with a little girl, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each.”
Case title - Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others vs. State of U.P. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2704 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court allowed an application of the Public Prosecutor's application for 'Withdrawal From Prosecution' as provided under Section 321 CrPC against the lone Bahujan Samaj Party MLA in Uttar Pradesh, Umashankar Singh in connection with a cheating case.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the concerned Public Prosecutor had not only considered the facts and circumstances of the case but also considered the evidence in a fair detailed manner.
Case title - Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 811 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Family Court rejecting the application of one Bitola (revisionist/wife) seeking maintenance from her Husband on the ground that she is staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that the Family Court conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of CrPC and disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself.
Case title - State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan @ Raziwan [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 114 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who misled the court to obtain a bail order.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order against Advocate Parmanand Gupta after finding that he obtained a favorable order for his client concealing the fact that another bail plea had earlier been rejected by another bench of the court.
Case title - Chantara vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 55
"Since 75th Independence Day Celebrations, Government has marked Azadi-ka-Amrit Mahotsav terming it to be 'Amrit Kaal' with prospective vision in the welfare of citizens of the country, however, Police Administration feels more comfortable to remain with colonial structure," the Allahabad High Court observed recently while taking exception to a counter affidavit filed by the state in an anticipatory bail plea stating that the applicant is of criminal intent.
Also Read - Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Consider Allowing Vehicles To Pass Without Paying Toll During Busy Hours
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan also took to task the deponent of the counter affidavit (Deputy Superintendent of Police/ Circle Officer, Sahawar, District Kasganj) by observing that the officer believed himself to be empowered with sanction to author a certificate of the propensity of a person without any cogent material.
"A bare reading of the averments in counter affidavit whereby the applicant is said to be of criminal intent appears to be on the basis of skewed information. No such officer is allowed to enjoy impunity on the pretext of discharging official functioning nor can be set free to form an audacious remark without any basis," the bench observed.
Case title - Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1789 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Competent Authority can not withhold the recommendation of a person indefinitely on the ground of adopting the sealed cover procedure during the pendency of the criminal case.
The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed thus while granting relief to one Ranbir Singh (presently serving as a Tehsildar with the State Government and seeking promotion to the post of a Deputy Collector) by directing the Competent Authority to consider his claim of opening the sealed cover within a period of eight weeks from the date.
Case title - Suneeta Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39234 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court observed that a woman can not commit the offence of rape but if she facilitates the act of rape with a group of people then she may be prosecuted for 'Gang Rape' under Section 376D Of IPC in view of the amended provisions.
Perusing the provisions of Section 375 and 376 IPC (as amended by Act 13 of 2013 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the argument that a woman cannot be prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence of gang rape.
Case title - Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assistant Director [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.7719 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of the alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razaq Peediyakkal in the PMLA Case wherein he has been accused of collecting and laundering funds over Rs. 20 crores for the PFI.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan rejected the bail plea today.
It may be noted that the ED raided Peediyakkal’s residence as well as the Munnar Villa Vista Project (MVVP) site in December 2021 wherein it found several discrepancies in the receipt of suspicious foreign funds from abroad and also in cash expenses incurred and recorded in the books of accounts.
Case Title: Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 35965 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court Bench, comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, while adjudicating a petition filed in Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank of Baroda & Ors., directed the Bank to re-consider its decision of declaring the Borrowers (Petitioners) as wilful defaulters, as a One Time Settlement (OTS) was subsequently entered between the Bank and Borrowers and full compromise amount has been towards the Petitioner Company’s accounts.
The Bench also granted liberty to the Borrowers to avail legal remedy if the Bank’s decision on their representation is not favourable to them.
Case title - Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11542 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court observed that a child in conflict with the law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can not file an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
"In case, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed to hold the field in the matters of juvenile, the aim and object of the Act shall be defeated. The interpretation of law cannot be devised in a way, so as to put a hurdle in the broader and solemn aim which is sought to be achieved by this enactment," the Court said.
Case title - Salman Khurshid vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38523 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Congress leader Salman Khurshid for allegedly making an indecent remark against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath.
During the electioneering for Lok Sabha Election 2019, while referring to Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Congress leader Khurshid had allegedly said: “Rishte me ham unke Baap Lagte hai".
Case title - Kushwaha Mahasabha and another vs. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1969 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Observing that nowadays litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court, the Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on a Government Teacher who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea by suppressing material facts.
The bench of the then Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir further observed that in the post-Independence period, materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
Case title - Santosh Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And 4 Ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 221 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The Allahabad High Court allowed the legal heirs of Santosh Gupta (now dead), who was the complainant in the Prabhat Gupta Murder case of 2000 in which the Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' is the prime accused, to participate, as 'Victims', in the State's appeal moved before the High Court challenging Teni's acquittal.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on an application moved before it bringing on record the surviving legal heirs of the original revisionist (Santosh Gupta), who, being the complainant, had instituted a revision plea before the HC in 2005 against the judgment of acquittal.
Taxing Authorities Can't Stop Assessee From Claiming Statutory Right: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1027 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court has held that the taxing authorities cannot, in the garb of technicality, stop any assessee from claiming his statutory right, as provided under the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that, due to the mistake of the department or a technical glitch in the software, when an appeal of an assessee is not reflected on the portal, the department cannot deny the appeal filed offline on technical grounds.
Case title - Prem Narayan Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 666 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 65
The Allahabad High Court allowed an application of the Public Prosecutor for 'Withdrawal From Prosecution' (as provided under Section 321 CrPC) against UP BJP MLA Prem Narayan Pandey in connection with a case registered against him under the UP Excise Act.
With this, the Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Gonda (in November 2020) rejecting the plea of the public prosecutor.
Case title - Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 302 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court DENIED anticipatory bail to Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi in connection with a rape case registered against him in the year 2021 by the wife of his former driver.
Noting that non-bailable warrants have been issued against Tyagi by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow last month, the bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan did not find any good ground to provide him protection from arrest.
Case title - Anees vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23624 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court observed that at the stage of adjudicating a bail application, it cannot delve into the quality or quantity of evidence and it can only consider whether the delinquent appears to have committed the crime and whether he is entitled to bail or not.
With this, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to a man who has been accused of killing his wife pursuant to setting her on fire. It was argued by the defence counsel that many prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution.
Case title - Jose Prakash George And 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1814 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against 37 persons accusing them of coerced the first informant into religious conversion (Hinduism to Christianity) by inducements.
While doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the counsel for the accused persons that the instant FIR (filed by an aggrieved person as per the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act) be quashed since there is already an FIR pending related to the same case.
Case title - Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others vs. State Of UP and Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 308 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Allahabad High Court transferred the trial against three J&K students accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan's victory in a T20 Cricket World Cup match against India in 2021 from the court of CJM, Agra to the court of CJM, Saharanpur.
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order on a transfer plea moved by the students after their counsel submitted before the Court that the District Bar Association, Agra has made a resolution that they will not defend the case of applicants.
Case title - Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4227 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by one Parvez Parwaz challenging a Trial Court's order rejecting his protest plea against closure report in the alleged 2007 hate speech case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Petitioner (Parwaz) is a busy body who has been fighting the case since 2007 and that his resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation.
"The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the bench remarked.
Case Title: M/s Radha Fragrance versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that under the garb of the protection given under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017, dispensing the requirement of E-Way bill for movement of goods valuing below Rs.50,000, a dealer who is a manufacturer, cannot be allowed to send his goods to different consignees by undervaluing the same, and without the Taxing Authorities proceeding to take action against him under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Prayagraj Violence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Javed Mohammad In Another Case
Case title - Javed Mohammad @ Pump @ Javed Ahmad vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55315 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the Welfare Party Of India Leader Javed Mohammad in another case pertaining to the June 2022 Prayagraj Violence incident. He has been accused of leading the mob which allegedly damaged public property and set police vehicles on fire.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot granted him bail as it noted that the counsels for the state could not satisfactorily refute the arguments made by the counsels for Javed Mohammad.
Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 709 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki in connection with the FIR lodged against him for using a forged Aadhar Card and using the same for his air travel.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh termed it as 'strange' that a Member of the Legislative Assembly forged the national identity card i.e. Aadhar Card and traveled on the basis of the same.
With this, the Court also rejected the argument of the Counsel appearing for Solanki that the case essentially pertains to a violation of the Aadhar Act 2016 and that for filing a complaint under the act, authorization from the competent authority is mandatory, and since in the present case, no such sanction/permission was granted by the competent authority, therefore, no proceedings could be maintained against him.
Case title - Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Observing that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to two men accused of committing gang rape against a married woman while stressing that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has to be considered at the time of adjudicating bail plea.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further added that much water has flown down the Ganges since the Apex Court's opined in a 1983 case (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat) that no girl would foist a false case of sexual assault against any person to avoid being maligned in the non-permissive Indian society.
Case title - Aditya Raj Verma vs. State Of U.P. . And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3077 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Granting bail to a man accused of raping his married live-in partner, the Allahabad High Court observed that it is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking of live-in relationship.
Opining that Indian Society, at large, does not recognize such relationships as acceptable, the Court added that a woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge a first information report against her live-in partner, as it happened in the present case.
Case title - Govind Prakash Pandey vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. India Represented By Its Assistant Director Lko.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), observing that he was not arrested by the investigating agency under Section 19 of the PMLA and therefore rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA can't be made applicable.
The regular bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA are not satisfied.
Case title - Shakila Khatun vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3573 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even for the period after iddat and for her whole life unless she is disqualified for the reasons such as marriage with someone else.
While observing thus, the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh set aside an order of the Family Court whereby the plea filed by one Shakila Khatun, a divorcee, under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed by holding that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C
Case Title: Rajeev Bansal Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 78
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) cannot be used to conduct the reassessment proceedings beyond March 30, 2021. The time limit outlined in Section 149(1)(b) (as amended beginning April 1, 2021) cannot be extended by the department after March 30, 2020.
The division bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit has observed that the relaxation law under TOLA would not govern the time frame prescribed under the first proviso to Section 149 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2021.
Case title - Umakant Yadav vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22865 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former MP Umakant Yadav in connection with a 2019 case involving the alleged grabbing and damaging of the Gandhi Ashram in the Azamgarh district.
Taking note of his long criminal antecedents of 80 cases, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that he is a Bahubali, gangster and a dreaded criminal of Eastern Uttar Pradesh and is known for having bahubali, mafia, and gangster culture.
Case title - Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18536 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 80
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that it is impermissible to dismiss bail applications for non-prosecution on account of the absence of counsel as it is violative of the fundamental rights of the prisoners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court added that in such cases, an amicus curiae should be appointed to represent the applicant/prisoner and the matter be heard on merits.
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to the Vice Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal and Institute's Director Vinod Bihari Lal in connection with a mass religious conversion case.
Noting that they are an influential person and their intent behind the charitable works appears to be
dubious, affecting the interest of a marginal section of society, the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan said that they can't claim parity with other persons who have been released on anticipatory bail.
The bench noted that material evidence regarding mass conversion has been collected by the investigating agency that affects society at large and hence, it is a case concerning a
serious offence and cannot be taken lightly.
Case title - Ali @ Ali Ahmad @ Mohd Ali Ahmad vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42431 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 82
While denying bail to Ali Ahmad, son of 'Bahubali', 'Mafia Don' and former MP & MLA, Atique Ahmad in an attempt to murder case, the Allahabad High Court said that Ali is himself a Mafia Don in making, whose role has also figured in the Umesh Pal Murder case.
Umesh Pal, who was the star witness in the murder case of Raju Pal, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was shot dead on 24 February by the assailants outside his residence in Uttar Pradesh's Prayagraj
Case title - Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 1743 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Stressing the importance of cows in Hinduism and the need to stop the practice of killing them, the Allahabad High Court hoped that the Central Government would take an appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a 'protected national animal'.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed also observed that since India is a secular country where we must have respect for all religions and in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence, and therefore, it should be protected and venerated.
Case Title - The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And 15 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Prescribed Authority under The Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, to refer the dispute, pertaining to deduction of salaries of the Indian Express employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, to the Labour Court.
Various employers including the newspapers had deducted the salaries of employees or workmen during the pandemic. In the case filed by certain employees of the Indian Express, it has been stated that they provided services even during the period in question - April 01, 2020, to February 28, 2021, but the daily still deducted a certain percentage of their monthly salary.
Case title - Kalika Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33349 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while considering the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, the Court cannot examine any defence of the accused which has yet to be placed before the subordinate Court.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus while refusing to entertain the plea filed by one Kalika Pratap Singh seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly abetting the suicide of a woman.
Case title - Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 5 of 2019]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 86
While cancelling bail granted to an accused (Farhan) in the 2005 murder of then BSP legislator Raju Pal in Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court observed that in the area of the Police Station Dhomanganj/Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj the writ of the State Government does not run, rather, the writ of dreaded criminal, Ateeq Ahmad runs.
The court observed thus as it noted that both Raju Pal and the star witness of the murder case, Umesh Pal (killed last month) were eliminated by assailants acting allegedly at the behest of Former MP Atique Ahmed.
Case Title - Rajesh Chandra @ Rakesh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against the officials of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the delay in awarding compensation to people of nine villages despite acquiring their land for a highway project.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Manjive Shukla passed this order on a plea moved by two such landholders whose pieces of land were acquired in 2016, however, no compensation for the same was awarded to them even when the highway has already been constructed.
Case title - U.P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha.U.P.Officer Shri N.P.M.Vidy.Raebareli Thru. President Ankur Chaudhari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 178 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the state is not bound to provide free textbooks and uniforms to all the students studying in unaided junior high schools being managed by private management.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi however added that the state and local authorities do have a duty to provide free textbooks and uniforms each year only to such students who are admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009.
Case title - Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8338 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the subordinate court issuing a summons to an accused for facing the trial of offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as it noted that the alleged act of abusing the victim took place inside the car, and not in public view.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh relied upon the Uttarakhand High Court's ruling in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttrakhand and another 2020 AIR (SC) 5584, wherein it was held that if the alleged incident of abuse took place inside the car, which is not in public view, thus, no offence under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) can be said to be made out.
Case Title- X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori of Allahabad High Court granted bail under section 12 of JJ Act (Juvenile Justice Act,2015) to a person, who was at the time of incident juvenile and accused of heinous offence. The court observed that the Appellate Court and JJ Board (Juvenile Justice Board) have failed to properly appreciate the mandatory provision of section 12 of JJ Act.
The bail application of the accused person charged under Sections 302,201,34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) was rejected by the JJ Board on the ground of gravity of the offence and the reason that there appears a reasonable ground for believing that the guardian of the juvenile has no effective control over the accused person and there is a possibility of re-occurrence of the offence after his release.
Case title - Ramu Mallah vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10996 of 2020]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Terming 'Mukhtar Ansari Gang' as the most dreaded criminal gang of India, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to an alleged Ansari gang member in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus while denying bail to a murder accused (one Ramu Mallah), who is an alleged member of the Mukhtar Ansari Gang.
Before the Court, Ramu Mallah's bail plea was opposed by the government while arguing that he is a member of the Mukhtar Ansari gang and that an FIR has been registered against Ramu Mallah under serious sections including murder, Arms Act.
Case title - Purushottam Chaudhary vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. The Superintendent Of Police Cbi/Acb Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1974 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court explained as to when a Proclamation under Sections 82, 83 CrPC be issued against a person to compel him to appear before the court be issued. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan decoded the procedure as laid down in the CrPC for the issuance of a proclamation, summons, and arrest warrants
Untangling the intricate procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the issuance of proclamation, the bench set aside a Non Bailable warrant and issuance of process under Section 82 of the CrPC against one Purushottam Chaudhary pertaining to a corruption case.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Former UP MLA Kamlesh Pathak In Gangster Act Case
Case Title - Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21738 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly member Kamlesh Pathak in the Gangster Act Case registered against him.
The bench of Justice Krishna Pahal did not find reasonable grounds for believing that Pathak is not guilty of such offence mentioned in the Gang Chart and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
The Court also took into account the gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents of Pathak to deny him the benefit of bail.
Lucknow Terror Conspiracy Case 2021: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Two Alleged Terrorists
Case title - Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to two alleged terrorists who were arrested last year in connection with a conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow. Earlier, the NIA court had dismissed their bail plea.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masood and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on bail pleas moved by accused Mohd. Mustaqeem and Mohammad Shakeel in view of the gravity of their 'unblemished' past antecedent and the gravity of the offences for which the trial is framed.
Case title - Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Bench of Allahabad High Court upheld the CBI inquiry report which found that the death of Dy CMO Dr. Y.S Sachin inside the Lucknow jail in June 2011 was suicidal and not homicidal.
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also quashed the summoning order of the magistrate against 7 retired/serving government officers to face the trial in connection with the murder of Dr. Y.S. Sachan and for causing the disappearance of evidence.
Printed Proforma Not Acceptable: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cognizance Order By Magistrate
Case- Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Justice Shamim Ahmed of Allahabad High Court has quashed the cognizance/summon order passed by a Civil Judge finding the order was passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, without application of judicial mind.
The application was filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of summons order and the entire proceeding of criminal case filed under Sections 376, 313 of IPC.
Case title - Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2674 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Granting bail to the 'Hathras Conspiracy' case accused Activist Atikur Rehman, the Allahabad High Court noted that the state could not show any financial gain received by him barring a sum of Rs. 5K, which was received in his bank account.
UAPA Activist Rehman, who was arrested in October 2020 along with journalist Siddique Kappan and two others, on his way to Hathras to meet the family members of a gang rape and murder victim, has been in jail since October 2020.
Case title - Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10173 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (named Sujeet Sharma) accused of making a video abusing the Chief Minister of the state, Yogi Adityanath, and sharing the same on WhatsApp.
The order was passed by the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot after the counsel for the accused made a submission that the accused holds constitutional dignitaries in the highest regard and that he did not have any intention of insulting high constitutional dignitaries.
Case title - In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court expressed its displeasure over the ongoing strike by the Uttar Pradesh electricity department employees despite the court's December 2022 order that the power supply should not be disrupted due to the strike by the employees.
Issuing contempt proceedings against the Employees' Association and its office bearers, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that even if there is a substance in the demand raised by the workers, yet, the entire State cannot be put to severe constraints by jeopardizing overwhelming public interest.
Case title - Saroj Kumari vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2211 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court observed that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 allowing for the grant of benefits to a woman would be applicable even after the birth of the child.
The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also opined that a woman can avail of maternity leave even after the birth of the child and such benefit can even be extended in a case of legal adoption of a child or less than three months.
Case title - Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9093 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a 23-year-old criminal case pending before the Varanasi Court against Congress' Rajyasabha MP Randeep Singh Surjewala as it noted that he has a remedy to move a discharge plea before the Trial Court.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta also directed that in case the Congress MP files a discharge plea before the local court within a period of two weeks, the same be considered and decided expeditiously within six weeks.
Case title - Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2590 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court suspended a 1-year jail term awarded to Uttar Pradesh cabinet minister Nand Gopal Gupta 'Nandi' by an MP/MLA court in Allahabad in January this year in connection with a 9-year-old assault case.
The Court also issued a direction for his release on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to deposition of fine.
Case title - Isha Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 36 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court canceled bail granted by a local court to a district court advocate who has been accused of sending obnoxious messages to a lady judge thereby causing harassment. The Court underscored that the Policy of Zero Tolerance in such matters has become imperative.
Dealing with the plea moved by the lady judge herself seeking cancellation of his bail, the bench of Justice Siddharth observed that the sessions judge ought to have considered the fact that such conduct of the accused will have a deleterious effect on the functioning of the judicial system at the grass root of level.
Case title - Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8514 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court observed that the prosecution in heinous offences such as rape and molestation of minors, which are punishable under the POCSO Act can't be quashed based on the compromise between the victim and the accused.
The Court also opined that the endeavour of the Court in a matter involving such offence is to determine the truth of the allegations and that the purpose is not to persecute the accused nor is it to let him off, because his relations with the complainant have taken a happier turn.
Case title - Khalid Azeem @ Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4003 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure the safety and proper security of Khalid Azim alias Ashraf, the brother of former Lok Sabha MP Atique Ahmed, during his jail transfer for the purpose of interrogation/remand proceedings in connection with the Umesh Pal Murder case.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that under Article 21, it is the duty of the State to protect the right and liberty of each citizen.
Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3794 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to issue directions orders to the Chief Medical Officers of the state regarding the preparation of postmortem reports or injury reports in typed format, which is legible.
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh issued this direction while granting bail to one Vishwanath, who has been accused of assaulting a victim, which resulted in his death. Pursuant to which, he was booked under Sections 323,504,506,304 IPC.
Case title - Shrey Singh vs. Union Of India And 9 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 13 of 2021]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court directed the Bar Council Of India to take against the persons hosting websites which offer online law course without the approval of BCI.
The bench of Chief Justice (Designate) Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh also asked the BCI to make appropriate recommendations to the Union of India to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to shut down such fraudulent websites.
Case title - Mahendra Pal And Ors. vs. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Edu.Andors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court directed the UP Government to prepare a revised select list of 69,000 Assistant Teachers selected through the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019 rectifying the irregularities committed in fixing the quota for their appointment.
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the rules were not followed in fixing reservations in the recruitment process and therefore, the authorities were directed to review the select list released on January 1, 2020.
Case title - Deepak vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2077 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against a Bhim Army leader who has been accused of making hate speech against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath and Bageshwar Baba, Dhirendra Shastri.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha (now serving as the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court) and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also declined to stay the arrest of the petitioner Deepak as it noted that prima facie, a case was made out against him.
Case Title: Agra Development Authority v. Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd. FAO No. 1033 of 2021
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause cover all the dispute arising out of the contract within its ambit then the scope of the arbitrator cannot be limited to decide only a particular dispute.
The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta held that all the disputes that have arisen before the appointment of the arbitrator can be referred to him for adjudication as the claim for damages which has been made prior to invocation of arbitration, becomes a dispute within the meaning of the provision of 1996 Act and the arbitrator’s jurisdiction cannot be confined to a particular dispute.
Case title - Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2613 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned the Trial Court against putting onerous surety conditions in bail matters which have no connection with the socio-economic status of the prisoner as it noted that the same would negate the order granting bail, and undermine the fundamental right of liberty of the prisoner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Stressing that the Constitution of India does not put a price tag on liberty, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot asserted that the purpose of sureties is dissuasive in intent, but unrealistic surety demands are punitive in effect.
Case title - Mohammad Tariq Qashmi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 605 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Mohammad Tariq Qashmi who was arrested in december 2007 on the allegation of possessing 1.25 Kg of RDX and three detonators. Qashmi is also an accused in 2007 serial blasts case that targeted courts in Lucknow, Banaras and Faizabad districts of the state.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav ordered his release on bail as it took note of the fact that the aspect of recovery of explosive substance requires consideration and that he has already served out the sentence for about 16 years.
