Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 12 – 18, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168 Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169 Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170 Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171 Vignesh S. Shishir vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 172 Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 173 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 174 Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175 M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 177 Lakhan And Others vs. State 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF WEEK Snake Venom Case: Allahabad High Court Dismisses YouTuber Elvish Yadav's Plea Against Chargesheet, Summons Case title - Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168 The Allahabad High Court dismissed YouTuber Elvish Yadav's plea against the chargesheet filed in the FIR against him for alleged misuse of snakes and snake venoms for making YouTube videos. Allegations against him also include organising rave parties and calling foreigners who make people consume snake venom and other intoxicating drugs. A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed his plea after orally observing that there are statements in the chargesheet and in the FIR against Yadav and that the veracity of such allegations will be tested during the trial. The single judge also noted that Yadav had not challenged the FIR in the petition. 'Hajj Travel Not An Absolute Right, Can Be Undertaken After Serving Sentence': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To S. 304 IPC Convict Case title - Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169 The Allahabad High Court refused to grant short-term bail to a man convicted under Section 304 IPC who sought to travel abroad for over a month to perform Hajj. A bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed that the right to do a Pilgrimage tour to the Hajj is not absolute, and the same could be curtailed as granting bail at this point may increase the chances of him fleeing outside the clutches of the law of this country. Rights Conferred By Hindu Succession Act Prevail Over Rights Claimed By Nominee U/S 39(7) Of Insurance Act: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2997 of 2022] Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170 The Allahabad High Court has held that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails over the Insurance Act, 1938 as the rights guaranteed to the successor under the former cannot be defeated by the rights guaranteed to the nominee under the latter enactment. While dealing with the claim of the mother-nominee over the insurance money of her deceased daughter against the rights of the daughter of the deceased, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held, “On harmonious interpretation of the two provisions i.e. Insurance Act and Hindu Succession Act, the rights conferred by Hindu Succession Act will prevail over the rights claimed by the nominee under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, the succession act being specific to succession in contradiction to the Insurance Act which is general.” Under Trial Must Obtain Permission From Court To Travel Abroad Prior To Applying For Issue/ Re-Issue/ Renewal Of Passport: Allahabad HC Case Title: Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171 The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that an under trail must obtain permission for travelling abroad from the Court concerned prior to applying for issue, re-issue or renewal of passport before the passport authority. The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held “A plain reading of the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and the beneficial Notification issued in terms of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 leads to the sole logical conclusion that in all cases wherein criminal proceedings are pending and have been denied the issuance of passport by the operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the under-trial, as a condition precedent has to first seek permission or NOC from the Court concerned, wherein the trial is pending, to travel abroad or depart, for which essentially a passport is required and then only as a condition subsequent apply to the passport authority for issuance of the passport for a particular period as mentioned in the permission order itself or for the period as mentioned in GSR 570(E) dated 25th of August, 1993.” 'Another Round Of Litigation': Allahabad HC Allows Withdrawal Of PIL Seeking Cancellation Of Rahul Gandhi's Citizenship Case title – Vignesh S. Shishir vs UOI and...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 12 – 18, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags