Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 273 - 543]
Sparsh Upadhyay
30 Dec 2022 5:59 AM GMT
![Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 273 - 543]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/30/750x450_451485-allahabad-high-court-yearly-digest-2022.webp "Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 273 - 543]")
CITATIONS: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273 to 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543 NOMINAL INDEX Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273 Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274 Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275 Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276 Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P...
CITATIONS: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273 to 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543
NOMINAL INDEX
Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277
M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279
Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280
Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281
Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282
Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283
Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285
Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286
Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Mohammed Zubair v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl Chief Secy. (Home), Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 291
Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 292
Prabhakar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Mukesh Bansal v State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 294
Anoop Kumar Singh And Another Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Tanishk Srivastava, Lucknow Thru. Father Ranjeet Km. Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prim. Edu. Civil Secrtt. Bapu Bhawan Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 296
Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Harit Kisan Kalyan Samiti Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 298
Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Irfan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Manish v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Mohar Pal And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 306
Anwar Ali v. State Of UP And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 307
Zamanat Abbas v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 308
Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai S/O Shri Bharat Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 309
Parvez Ahmad And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 310
Amita Garg And 6 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 311
Srawan Kumar Maurya v. State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 312
Reena Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 313
Vinod Kumar Garg v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Govt. Of U.P Civil Secrt. Lucknow And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 314
Sanjog Walter Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Up Lko And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 315
State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Manish Yadav v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 328
M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329
State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Sunita Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Sukhbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 340
Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v. State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secretary Home And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 342
X(Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Vartika Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. District Amethi And 3 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Pintu Gupta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Wajid Advocate Alias Wajid Khan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Ayyub Khan @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Kusum Lata Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 349
M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S G.S.C. Toughened Glass 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Rashmi Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko.Asssss 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Poonam Kushwaha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Susheel Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Sidhique Kappan v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Ravi Sarthi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education,Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Lakhan @ Babblu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Anurag Sharma v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 360
M/S Bcits Pvt. Ltd. v. Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Fayanath Yadav S/O Late Devdutt Yadav (Fourth Bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Javed v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Nabco Products Private Limited versus Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Babu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Raj Kishore @ Pappu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Archana Devi v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Neha Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Vikas Kumar Alias Vikas Agrahari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 369
Amar Singh v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Triyugi Nath Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Dr. Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Nirbhay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others along with connected pleas 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Ajay Kumar Yadav And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 374
SR Cold Storage versus Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Sunil Kumar Chauhan And 186 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others along with connected petitions 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Smt. Kiran Kunwar And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Azahar Khan v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Gaurav @ Govind v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Km. Mohini v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 381
In Re v. Shri Chandan Kumar, Investigating Officer 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Drs Wood Products Lucknow Versus State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Intezamia Committee Shahi Masjid v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Alam @ Mohammad Alam v. State Of U.P. and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Richa Dubey v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 389
Smt. Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti Thru. Secy. Adv. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. The Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment New Delhi And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Avneesh Kumar And Another v. Dr Sujoy Lal Thaosen,Director And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Mohd.Shakib v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Vaibhav Singh v. Smt. Divyashika Singh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Ramkrit Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Ashish Yadav v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Ishrat v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Abbas Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another v. U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Kanta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu v. State Of U.P., Through Secretary Home Govt. Of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Rajdhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Gabbar Patel @ Dharmendra v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Dr. Vijay Arora v. King George Medical University Thru. Registrar Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Pramod Kumar Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. And 11 Others along with a connected plea 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Mohd. Saif Ali v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Annu Tandon and three others v. State Through Railway Protection Force 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Eklavya Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.P.W.D. And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Peeyush Kumar Jain v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Satakshi Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Dept. Lucknow And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Dr. B.R. Ambedker Granthalaya Evam Jan Kalyan v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Mohd. Sarfaraz v. Mohd. Abid And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Sri Bal Ganesh Pooja Mahotsav Samiti Thru. President Laxmi Niwas Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Smt. Neelam Sharma And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Sohel Ahmad Siddiqui v. Noorul Huda English Medium School 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 417
Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418
Waseem v. State of U.P. and Another alonhg with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 419
State of U.P. v. Sarvan and connected appeals 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Rajnish v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Shamshad v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Ratnesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Julfikar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher Education) And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Suab And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Anand Giri alias Ashok Kumar Chotiya v. State of U.P. and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Shyam Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Manoj Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Vikas Gupta Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Varun Gupta Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 431
M/s. Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi versus U.O.I. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Aditya Kumar v. Union Of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 433
State of U.P. v. Mahfooz Ansari And 6 Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Mohd. Aman Khan v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Ram Sewak v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438
State of U.P. v. Ram Autar 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Dr. Meraj Ali And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 440
State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Rajiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Anurag Dubey (Second bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Rudra Dutt Sharma Alias Rudra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Rahul Pandey v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 445
State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Ms. X Thru. Her Legal Guardian Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Bundu And 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Pawan Mishra v. State of U.P. along with the connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Ambika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Sapna v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Rajendra Kumar And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Shahzad v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Jitendra @ Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Ajay Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Umesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Kailash v. State of U.P. and other connected appeals 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Tulsarani And Another v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Azizurrahman v. Hamidunnisha @ Sharifunnisha 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Prveen Kashyap v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Monu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Nadeem Ansari v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Amarjeet v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 467
State of U.P. v. Govind Pasi along with a connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Sujit & Ors. v. State & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Naresh Kumar Valmiki v. State of U.P. and others along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Sandeep Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Lal Bihari Yadav v. Chairman/Sabhapati U.P. Legislative Council Vidhan Bhawan Lko & another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Mr.X(Minor) v. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Lokesh Kumar Khurana and others v. Union of India and others along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Malati Devi v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Rama Nand v. Hira Lal : 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479
State Of U.P. v. M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480
In re v. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Arti Devi v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Haseen Alias Ishu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Mohd. Sajid v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Anil Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Haji Mahboob Ahmad And Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Aftaf @ Nafees @ Pappu v. State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 488
Sagar v. State Of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 489
Raheem v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 490
Om Prakash v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Dr. M Ismail Faruqui v. Shri Adityanath 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Kailash Jaiswal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Anurag Singh Bhadouriya (in FIR Anurag Bhadouriya) v. State Of UP. Thru Addl. Chief Secy/Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett Lko and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Sameer Khan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497
X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Anil Kumar v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Jal Shakti Deptt. Drinking Water And Sanitation New Delhi And ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 507
Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Raj Kumar v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 509
Shipra Hotels Limited And Anther v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Ganesh v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Vakeel Quraishi and 2 Ors.v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Hari Singh v. Shyam Bihari And 20 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Pushpendra Chauhan vs. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Vijay Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko. And ors along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Anil vs. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 522
X (victim) vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 524
Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Ansad Badruddin And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Devendra Pandey and others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Md. Umar Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Amit Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Badri Shrestha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Basoo Yadav vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 534
U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority versus M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Kamla Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Sidhique Kappan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Faisal Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 538
XYZ vs. State of UP and 2 others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Saleem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Vaibhav Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Gulam Rashul vs. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case title - Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273
The High Court acquitted two accused of murder charges. The Court held that the instant case was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had completely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which unerringly points toward the involvement and guilt of the two appellants.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Shamim Ahmed also stressed that suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof.
Case title - Ramshankar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12510 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274
The High Court granted bail to a POCSO Accused taking into account the welfare of the child born out of wedlock of Accused and Victim. The Court stressed that the life of a newborn child is at stake and she can't be left to face the stigma during her life.
In the instant case, the accused and the victim (both from the same village) had a love affair and out of fear of the villagers, the accused has eloped with the victim in May 2018 and had undergone marriage in a temple although the said marriage was not registered.
Case title - Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48222 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that he shall serve the cows for a period of one month in Gaushala after his release from the jail.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav issued this order while granting bail to one Saleem Alias Kaliya, who was booked under Sections 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Case title - Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12379 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276
The High Court granted bail to a rape accused in view of the fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution's case during the trial and that she had been declared hostile.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh also issued direction to the trial court to take steps for a refund of the compensation paid to her and also, ensure compliance of Section 344 CrPC [Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence] in the instant case.
"Considering the societal interest, it is high time for the trial court to resort to Section 344 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases. In the present case since the prosecutrix before the trial Court has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution's version, therefore she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government, which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country," the court ordered as it granted bail to the accused.
Case title - Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 142 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277
The High Court ordered the deletion of an interim bail condition imposed on an Urdu scholar Mirza Shafiq Husain Shafaq in connection with a matrimonial dispute regarding the deposit of his passport before the S.S.P/S.P concerned.
Calling the bail condition 'onerous', the Bench of Justice Siddharth emphasized upon the fundamental right to travel abroad as it referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in the case of Capt. Anila Bhatia vs State Of Haryana. Further, the Court ordered that the condition of the surrender of the passport be deleted.
Case title - M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278
The High Court observed that non-reporting of the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) forthwith to the magistrate concerned doesn't render such seizure ipsofact illegal.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it relied upon and agreed with Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207.
Case title - Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused (Bhavesh Jain) in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam case.
The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav noted that the complaint and the charge sheet submitted against the accused, a software engineer, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under the relevant sections of the I.P.C.
Case title - Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 588 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280
The High Court observed that the trial court has the power to allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point of time during the trial.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus as it upheld the order of the trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution under section 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they were not filed in property form during the filming of the charge sheet.
It may be noted that Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act requires the production of a certificate for leading secondary evidence of an electronic record. This provision aims to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
Case title - Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 584 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281
In an order passed in a criminal revision, the High Court explained the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC [attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder].
Case title - Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 650 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The High Court observed that matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themself through a compromise deed duly filed and verified by the Court.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed thus as it quashed criminal proceedings initiated by an FIR lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
Case title - Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1959 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283
"It is deplorable that the representative of the public compel the public servant to pass illegal orders and the public servant comply their illegal dictates without any demur," observed the High Court in one of its orders.
The Bench of Justice Siddharth made this stern remark while allowing a plea filed by one Basrat Ullah challenging an order passed by Special Secretary, UP Govt removing him as the Principal of Madarsa Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrool Uloom at District Basti.
Case title - Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 718 of 2006]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The High Court observed that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under certain sections/offences, it has no power to review its own order for dropping section(s) from the cognizance order.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus as it upheld an order of the magistrate rejecting an application filed by the accused/petitioner to withdraw cognizance order in connection with one of the offences of the charge sheet (on which the magistrate had earlier taken cognizance).
Case title - Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18303 of 2020]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The High Court granted conditional bail to an NDPS Accused Wali Hasan, accused of smuggling 201 kg of ganja in view of the fact that the sampling of the Ganja was not done as per the Standing Order/Instruction No.1 of 1989.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai ordered to release the applicant- Wali Hassan on bail on his furnishing a personal bonds and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Case title - Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The High Court dismissed a petition filed by UP Judicial Services Association along with some of the judicial officers (having less than 3 years of experience as of December 31, 2021) seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those judges who have completed three years in service can't be interfered with by the Court in its Writ jurisdiction.
Case title - Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 289 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The High Court observed that failure to properly advertise vacant posts is a violation of the fundamental right of the prospective/potential candidates and is also unfair to such candidates. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order.
Essentially, one Ravi Pratap Mishra had moved before the single judge stating that he was appointed as a clerk in a school, however, Mishra the District Inspector Of School had refused to sanction his appointment as a clerk on the ground that the advertisement clerical recruitment had been published in a newspaper having less circulation in the concerned area.
Case title - Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3793 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288
The High Court quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016], therefore, as per the bank's transfer policy, he shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer.
Case title - Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2173 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Explaining the scope and power of the court under Section 319 CrPC, the High Court observed that this provision allows the court to summon those persons who are not named in the charge sheet to appear and face trial (in certain circumstances).
The Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that the very object of engrafting section 319 Cr.P.C. is to not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free.
Case title - Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor [FIRST APPEAL No. - 351 of 2020]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290
The High Court observed that the act of the wife in visiting her parents house frequently without taking consent of her husband and other family members can neither constitute the offence of desertion nor amounts to cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus as it allowed an appeal filed by the Appellant/wife challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting divorce decree in favor of the husband.
Case title - Mohammed Zubair v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl Chief Secy. (Home), Lko. And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 291
The High Court dismissed a petition moved by the Co-Founder of Alt News, Mohammed Zubair challenging an FIR registered against him earlier this month for a tweet in which he allegedly called 3 Hindu seers- Yati Narasinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni and Anand Swaroop as 'Hate mongers'
It may be noted that Zubair was booked by the Uttar Pradesh Police earlier this month under sections 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Case title - Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46494 of 2021]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 292
While denying bail to former MLA Mukhtar Ansari (presently in jail) in connection with a case over misappropriation of MLA Funds fund in the year 2012-13, the High Court called him a dreaded and 'White Collored' criminal, an interstate mafia and canker in society
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that Ansari is a hardened and habitual offender, who is in the sphere of crime since 1986 but surprisingly, he has managed not a single conviction against him.
Case title - Prabhakar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2341 of 2001]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 293
In a significant observation, the High Court said that while exercising the revisional power, the Sessions Court cannot quash the cognizance and summoning order passed by the Magistrate as its revisional jurisdiction is very limited.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed further added that in case the Sessions Court finds any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error while acting as a revisional court, then instead of quashing the proceedings, it had power only to issue direction by pointing out the error in the magistrate order.
Case title - Mukesh Bansal v State of UP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 294
Allahabad High Court on Monday issued certain guidelines/safeguards to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
One of the guidelines issued by the Court states that after the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under 498A IPC, no arrest or coercive action should be taken against the accused during the cooling-off period of two months.
During this period, the Court has ordered that the issue should be referred to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC). It may be noted Section 498-A punishes a woman's husband or his relatives if they subject her to cruelty.
Case title - Anoop Kumar Singh And Another Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 295
The High Court has observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheets.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet.
Case title - Tanishk Srivastava, Lucknow Thru. Father Ranjeet Km. Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prim. Edu. Civil Secrtt. Bapu Bhawan Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The High Court recently observed that receiving proper education is a Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further observed that educational authorities must ensure that the grievance relating to the admission to an institution is redressed with promptness and does not remain unattended.
Case title - Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23466 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297
The High Court has directed the State Government to consider the framing of a code laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also stressed that the solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country.
"Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung," the Court added.
Case title - Harit Kisan Kalyan Samiti Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17175 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 298
The High Court ordered a conditional stay on the demolition drive being carried out by the Noida Authority along the Yamuna floodplains.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Sameer Jain issued this order on a plea challenging a public notice issued by the NOIDA Authority on June 8 declaring that no construction is permissible in the Yamuna/Hindon flood plains area and all the constructions therein shall be liable to be demolished.
Case title - Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12409 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The High Court has observed that a delay in the conclusion of the proceedings/trial should not be the reason for the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it quashed an order of the Trial Court wherein an application moved under Section 311 CrPC was rejected noting that the case had been pending for a substantial amount of time.
Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
The High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas.
It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.
Case title - Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3265 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The High Court has observed that the work of a Court can not be brought to a grinding halt on account of the fact that the elections of a registered society are to be held.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the Bar Association is not established to obstruct the functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions.
Case title - Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
In a significant remark, the High Court has said that an advocate should not give such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any other reason why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a civil review application wherein the advocate concerned advised his client to take a chance by filing the instant review application after a period of six years.
Case title - Irfan v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted conditional bail to a man accused of beating people were returning back to their house raising the slogan of 'Jai Sri Ram.
The Bench of Justice Jayant Banerjee ordered the release of the accused (Irfan) on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ with two sureties.
Case title - Manish v. State of U.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 304
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if bail is granted to similarly placed co-accused persons without assigning any reasons, then, on the basis of such bail orders, merely on the ground of parity, the bail application should not be allowed.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sameer Jain was dealing with the case of one Manish who was seeking bail in connection with a murder case wherein it was alleged that he, along with his parents ablazed a lady by pouring kerosene oil on her.
Case title - Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu v. State of U.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 305
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to an accused in connection with the murder of an eight-time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi, who represented India in various international championships.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav took into the record the evidence adduced before it to conclude that Modi was killed by firing made by convict/appellant along with one another accused by using fire arm.
Sections 4 And 5 Of CrPC Do Not Apply To Offences Under IPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mohar Pal And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 306
The High Court held that the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC do not apply to offencs committed under the Indian Penal Code and that these provisions are applicable when any special act comes into operation.
The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and justice Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mohar Pal And Another and observed that Sections 4 and 5 of CrPC pertain to the procedure where the offence under a particular Act is committed.
Case title - Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai S/O Shri Bharat Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 309
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that it is the responsibility of the Parliament to show its collective will to restrain the criminals from entering into the politics, Parliament, or legislature to save democracy and the country governed on democratic principles and rule of law.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus while denying bail to a sitting Member of Parliament (Bahujan Samaj Party), Atul Rai in connection with an Abetment of suicide case. The bench also noted that Rai is facing 23 criminal cases, which include cases of kidnapping, murder, rape, and other heinous offences.
Case title - Parvez Ahmad And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17024 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal case against a government teacher and a madrasa teacher from whose possession cow meat (beef) and 16 live cattle were recovered.
The Bench Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the First Information Report (FIR) that prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants and thus, no case was made out to quash the case against them.
Case title - Amita Garg And 6 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5286 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 311
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a High Court has the power to grant transit anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with an offence regsitered/about to be registered outside its jurisdiction/state.
"...there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed and the case is registered," the bench of Justice Siddharth held.
Case title - Srawan Kumar Maurya v. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2422 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 312
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere non-examination of the accused medically after the incident cannot create clouds of doubts on the evidence of eye-witnesses well supported with medical evidence.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it upheld the conviction of the rape accused who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court coupled with a direction pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the victim.
Case title - Reena Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2702 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 313
The Allahabad High Court upheld the murder conviction and life sentence awarded to a woman and her alleged lover for killing the husband of the woman in furtherance of common intention.
The Court observed that the wife/accused had failed to explain her conduct and the state of leaving her husband's room (where he was found murdered the next morning) late at night.
Case title - Vinod Kumar Garg v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Govt. Of U.P Civil Secrt. Lucknow And Another [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 372 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 314
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of the State of U.P. from 60 years to 62 years.
Stressing that in service matters, no public interest litigation is maintainable, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Rajnish Kumar dsimissed the plea noting that the petitioner was a complete stranger and was seeking alteration in the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government.
Case title - Sanjog Walter Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Up Lko And 5 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 374 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the state government authorities for the removal of encroachment over various drainage systems in the city of Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court issued a slew of directions to the Lucknow Development Authority.
Though the court noted that prayers in the writ plea are omnibus in nature, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Rajnish Kumar disposed it of with the following directions to the Nagar Nigam:
- Activate its employees/ officials so that different drainage systems operating in the city of Lucknow are cleaned and are appropriately maintained.
- Take all such effective steps which may help to remove or minimize the difficulties being faced by the residents of Lucknow on account of water logging, which is being caused during monsoon.
- Take all possible steps to mitigate the aforesaid problem including installation of pumps where syphoning of water may be required.
- The officials of Nagar Nigam shall also ensure that pumps already installed are in a fit and functional condition.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1709 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. With this, the Court upheld the acquittal order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC).
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma noted that the witnesses in the instant cases were not able to recognize the accused persons and the accused persons were named in F.I.R on account of enmity.
Criminal Intimidation Case: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Uttar Pradesh MLA Nahid Hasan
Case title - Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8054 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal denied him bail looking to his criminal history and the order sheet of the trial court showing that he avoided appearing before the trial court.
Essentially, an FIR was registered under Section 406, 504, 506, I.P.C against Hasan and one Nawab by one Shahjahan alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in the year 2015 to co-accused Nawab.
Case title - Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Referring to several landmark rulings, the Allahabad High Court has observed that by way of an interim order the order of suspension termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in Court.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was essentially dealing with an Intra Court Appeal filed questioning the interlocutory order passed in March 2022 wherein the termination order against an employee of Abss Institute Of Technology was stayed during the pendency of the writ plea filed by the employee challenging the termination order.
Case title - Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 142 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequacy of sentence and therefore, the appeal preferred by the 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] of the crime against the inadequacy of sentence is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan in its order clarified that the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. [No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided] could only be filed on the happening of three situations namely
(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;
(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence;
(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).
Case title - Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the 2012 notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government resuming a piece of land [1500 square meters] in Village Manauri, District Prayagraj where currently a building known as Imambara Qadeem is situated.
Essentially, the UP Government invoked its powers of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to take possession of the property in question. This was done for the Dedicated Freight Corridor project.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2995 of 1985]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and taking a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.
"In the appeal against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.ere must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal," the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.
These observations were made while ALLOWING government appeal against a judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in 1985 by which 3 accused-respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. One of the respondents died during the appeal.
Case title - Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7015 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the First Information Report filed against one Mumtaz Mansoori who allegedly called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister of India, Amit Shah, and other Union Ministers as 'Dog'.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed that although our Constitution recognizes freedom of speech, however, such right does not extend to hurling abuses or making derogatory remarks against any citizen much less the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Government of India.
Case title - State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 12 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court allowed the state government's application to withdraw a criminal case against Uttar Pradesh Minister of State for Health, Mayankeswar Saran Singh.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that when the complainant himself is not supporting the prosecution case, then there is no chance of conviction of the accused in the case and thus, withdrawal from prosecution would be in the interest of justice.
Case title - Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate can take cognizance of the complaint or application filed by the aggrieved person and issue notice to the respondent under Section 12 of the D.V. Act even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report (DIR).
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh referred to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474, wherein it was held that Section 12 of the DV Act does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act.
Case title - Manish Yadav v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 4645 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the initiation of the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC after the filing of an anticipatory bail plea by an accused does not bar the consideration of such a bail application.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail to one Manish Yadav, who is an Army personnel serving in the Indian Army and has been booked in a rape case.
Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5268 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court has directed Mathura Court to expeditiously decide on an application filed before it for conducting a Scientific Investigation of Shahi Eidgah and Jahanara's Masque in connection with a 2021 suit (Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others).
The bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit ordered thus while hearing an Article 227 plea moved by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others seeking a direction to the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Mathura to decide the application filed before the Mathura Court.
Case title - Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2407 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed against the accused even if no grievous hurt has been caused to the acid attack survivor and that grievous hurt to an acid attack survivor is not mandatory in each case.
It may be noted that this provision deals with the offence and punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. It says that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life imprisonment.
Case title - Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1430 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has the right of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is given to investigating agency and only they can move an application before the magistrate for further investigation.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further observed that after the commencement of trial, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant, can direct further investigation in a case.
Show Cause Notice Cancelling GST Registration Must Disclose Reason: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others WRIT TAX No. - 1064 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court has held that the show cause notice cancelling registration must indicate the reason and the mere mentioning of violation under the CGST Act is not sufficient.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1990 of 1985]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Holding that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in a 42-year-old murder case (which took place in July 1980).
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari was essentially dealing with a Government appeal filed against a 1985 jdgment and order passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai by which the two accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 302 IPC.
Case title - Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3041 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if cognizance has been taken on a police report, then there is no need to pass a fully reasoned order if from the perusal of the cognizance order it appears that the court has applied its mind to the materials on record.
It may be noted that a Police Report means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 (2) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also clarified that even if there is an irregularity in the cognizance order passed by the Court, then also, on that ground, the proceedings cannot be vitiated in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C.
It may be noted that Section 465 of CrPC states that no finding, sentence or order of a competent court shall be reversed on account of irregularity unless there is a failure of justice.
Case title - Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3532 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Hinting that a proclaimed offender may also move an anticipatory bail plea, the Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 438 of CrPC doesn't say that a proclaimed offender would be barred to file such a plea.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan further observed that Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding) neither creates any rider nor imposes any restrictions in filing anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender.
Case title - Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3511 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333
"The age of 15-16 years or below 18 years is not the age where any young couple should enter into the institution of marriage," the Allahabad High Court observed recently as it granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl taking into account the larger interest of the child born out of their consensual relationship.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan however clarified that the bail order not be cited in any other case as precedence inasmuch as the bai was granted considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Case title - Sunita Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29138 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner with a cost of Rs.5,000 as it noted that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that they were facing any threat from the husband of the woman.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi further observed that the Constitution of India may permit live-in relations but the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners (live-in partners) with the purpose of obtaining the seal of the High Court on their illegal relationship.
Case title - Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 335
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no bar on entertaining an anticipatory bail plea of an accused, if during the pendency of plea, any proclamation u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is issued.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta further observed that after the rejection of the anticipatory bail plea by the lower court, a person has a right to approach the High Court and if in the interregnum period, any proclamation u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is issued, then the same may be considered as a circumventive exercise being taken by the Investigating Officer.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Dowry Death Accused In View Of Poor Progress Of Trial
Case title - Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8561 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a dowry death accused (in jail for about 6 years) in view of the poor progress of the trial in the case.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was essentially dealing with the second bail application of one Kuldeep in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case title - Sukhbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21859 of 2021]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court has observed that whenever it is provided that an offence is cognizable by the Session Court, the Magistrate cannot probe the matter and cannot discharge the accused. With this, the Court set aside an order of magistrate dismissing discharge application filed by an accused booked under Section 306 IPC
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh further observed that the Magistrate should have committed the case to the Court of Session under section 209 CrPC, but in spite of doing so, he had heard the application of the accused for discharge, which was not in his domain.
Case title - Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1776 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 338
"It is irony and tragedy of the Indian republic and biggest scar on Indian democracy that criminals like Mukhtar Ansari are the law-makers," the Allahabad High Court observed as it denied bail to former UP MLA in a case wherein he has been accused of registering an ambulance on forged and fabricated document.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh further observed that since the ambulance was allegedly being used to carry Ansari's men armed with illegal and sophisticated weapons for his protection, therefore, there was no ground to enlarge him on bail.
Case title - Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5233 of 2014]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) quashed a criminal case against four real brothers, and their father, aged around 81 years who were booked for allegedly gang-raping a married woman, having two grown-up children
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that it was not believable that four real brothers and their father would commit rape on a woman having two grown up children.
Case title - Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5233 of 2014]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) quashed a criminal case against four real brothers, and their father, aged around 81 years who were booked for allegedly gang-raping a married woman, having two grown-up children
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that it was not believable that four real brothers and their father would commit rape on a woman having two grown-up children.
Case title - Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION US 482 No. - 11167 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 340
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.
It may be noted that 'institution of prosecution' would refer to the date of filing of the complaint or registering of the FIR [vide Darshan Singh Saini Vs. Sohan Singh and another (2015) 14 SCC 570 & Johnson Alexander Vs. State by CBI Cri. Appeal 1478 of 2010]
It was specifically observed by the bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2021]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Denying bail to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case, the Allahabad High Court today pointed toward the recent trend in media to conduct ill-informed and agenda-driven debates. The Court also said that the media has been overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases.
Speaking about media trials, the Court said that such trials take up the investigation on its own, leading to forming public opinion against a suspect, even before the court takes cognizance of the case.
As a result, the Court said, the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated as a criminal and added that this problem has been multiplied by electronic and social media, especially with tool kits. Further, the Court also blamed the media for running Kangaroo Courts.
Apart from this, the Court also added that of late, the media is seen overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases, as was evident in the cases of Jessica Lal, Indrani Mukherjee, and Aarushi Talwar, etc.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further remarked that the media is supposed to provide news to society, but sometimes, individual views are overshadowing the news thus putting an adverse effect on truth.
Case title - Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v. State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secretary Home And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider giving employment of one of the family members of the Hathras Gang rape Victim under the Government or Government Undertaking commensurate with the qualification possessed by them.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh further directed the government to consider their relocation to any other place within the State outside Hathras keeping in mind their social and economic rehabilitation and also the educational needs of the children.
Case title - X(Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1714 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even a minor has a right to keep her person and even the parents cannot compel the detention of a minor against her will unless there is some other reason for it.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while granting the custody of minor victim (in connection with a case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC) to her mother after ascertaining the minor's wishes.
Case title - Vartika Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. District Amethi And 3 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Union Minister Smriti Irani and two others alleging that they had demanded ₹25 lakh to appoint the Revisionist as a member of the National Commission for Women (NCW).
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was essentially dealing with the revision plea filed by an international shooter Vartika Singh who claimed in her plea that she was asked to pay ₹25 lakh as a bribe for confirming her appointment as a member of the NCW.
Case title - Pintu Gupta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4083 of 2017]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court has observed that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, there must be evidence to show that the accused committed on the ground that such person/victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
It may be noted that Section 3(2)(v) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by one Pintu Gupta challenging the judgment and order dated passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur convicting accused-appellant, Pintu Gupta, under Sections 326 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
The accused-appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 326 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act.
Case title - Wajid Advocate Alias Wajid Khan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2650 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court granted pre-arrest bail to two practising advocates accused of damaging vehicles and assaulting public servants during CAA-NRC Protests in 2019.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh granted bail to 68-year-old Wajid Khan (having 40 years of practice experience as an advocate). The Court also granted bail to another advocate who is 60 years old.
Essentially, the applicants are facing multiple FIRs in connection with an incident that took place on December 2, 2019, accusing them of leading a mob comprising about 250-300 persons, who were armed with lathi sticks and rods and who damaged vehicles lying parked at the side of the road and they also assaulted the public servants.
Case title - Ayyub Khan @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4573 of 2021]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 347
"...crime against women in general and rape, in particular, is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honor. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes," remarked Allahabad High Court.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus as it denied bail to one Ayyub Khan @ Guddu (accused/appellant) who had moved the High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya denying him bail in a case wherein he has been accused of committing rape against a woman and also making her nude video.
Allahabad High Court Granted Bail To Accused In Rs. 529 Crores Tax Evasion Case
Case title - Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused who was in continued judicial custody for more than 150 days. DGGI alleged that the accused formed 75 fake firms and prepared fake documents/invoices evidencing financial transactions between various parties without actual movement of goods; and as a sequel thereof, input tax credit of Rs. 5,28,91,94,250/- (Rupees Five Hundred Twenty Eight Crores Ninety One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) has been passed on to various buyers.
Case citation: Kusum Lata Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 28249 of 2021]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Stressing that the protection of the life of the individuals engaged in election duty during COVID-19 is an absolute duty of the State, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the State Government to release the ex-gratia payment to the dependents of such individuals who died due to COVID in and around their election duty during COVID-19 second wave (April-May 2021).
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also held that if a person, who was admitted to the hospital as a COVID patient, died due to heart failure or any other reason, even then, such death will be considered a COVID Death and the government shall be liable to provide an ex-gratia amount to the relatives of the deceased.
Case Title: M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the conditions enumerated in Exemption Notification No. KA-NI-2-3867, dated 22.12.2001, for availing exemption from Trade Tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with.
The Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that since the land was not transferred to the applicant before the cut-off date as prescribed under the said Exemption Notification, the applicant could not be considered as a "new unit" and hence, it was not eligible for trade tax exemption under Section 4-A.
10% VAT Payable On Insulated Glass: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S G.S.C. Toughened Glass
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court has held that 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) is payable on insulated glass.
The single judge bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that insulated glass is nothing but double glazed dual sheet (DGDS).
The department has filed the revision against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. In that order, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal and held that insulated glass manufactured and sold by the assessee falls within the general description of 'plain glass-panes'. Therefore, it is excluded from Notification No. 1273 dated April 25, 2001 as amended from time to time. Accordingly, insulated glass has been held taxable as an unclassified commodity at the rate of 10%.
Case title - Rashmi Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko.Andors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to change the name is a facet of a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and that such a right cannot be denied.
Essentially, the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed this while hearing the plea of a lady (named Rajni Shrivastava) who wanted to change her name to 'Rashmi Srivastava', however, her application regarding this was rejected by the UP Secondary Education board.
Case title - Poonam Kushwaha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 402 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court came down hard on the practice of filing Habeas Corpus Petitions to exert pressure upon the police to speed up their investigation. The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed thus:
"The Habeas Corpus Petitions should not to be used as whip over the police to officials, just to serve out the petition's vanity over the police."
The Court also noted that in cases where the FIR with regard to the alleged act of kidnapping, abduction, illegal confinement, or for ransom is filed and police personnel are pursuing the matter at their end, the lodging of a parallel Habeas Corpus Petition in such cases could be called as motivated and purposive one.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Throwing Objectionable Meat At Ayodhya's Edgah
Case title - Susheel Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8422 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to one Susheel Kumar who has been accused of throwing objectionable meat at Edgah in Ayodhya along with some objectionable papers.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted him bail keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding the complicity of the accused, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Kumar had moved the Court seeking bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 295, 295-A, 120-B, and 34 IPC. As per the prosecution story, some unknown persons had thrown objectionable meat at Edgah along with some objectionable papers on 27.04.2022.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in connection with the 'Hathras Conspiracy Case' as it noted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against Kappan are prima facie true.
At the outset, the Court noted that during the investigation, it had come on record that Kappan had no work at Hathras when he was arrested.
"The State machinery was at tenterhooks owing to the tension prevailing due to various types of information being viral across all forums of media including the internet. The said sojourn of the applicant with co-accused persons who do not belong to media fraternity is a crucial circumstance going against him," the Court further said.
Case title - Ravi Sarthi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education,Lko. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5028 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Babu Banarasi Das University in Lucknow to declare the results of 3 LLM students that were withheld by the University administration over non-payment of fee.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia was essentially hearing the plea filed by Ravi Sarthi and 2 others who are pursuing their Masters of Law Degree with specialization in Criminal and Security Law offered by the BBD University.
Case title - Lakhan @ Babblu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5765 of 2011] along with connected government appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi further observed that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
Case title - Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2133 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a self-styled international Hindu Leader and Yogi Sena Pramukh, Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu who has been accused of taking money from the public at large by way of cheating.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted him bail considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the period of incarceration while keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding, his complicity, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He was in jail since December 2020.
Case title - Anurag Sharma v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3603 of 2018]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the place of hiding the weapon is exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and that place cannot be or is not in the knowledge of any other person and the weapon is recovered from the same place, such type of recovery is absolutely reliable.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi observed this while upholding the conviction of a murder accused (Anurag Sharma) who killed his own father and was sentenced to life imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in 2018.
Case title - Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1621 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 360
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has allowed conduct of DNA Test in a murder trial as it noted that the same was in the interets of justice to unearth the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
However, the bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary did stress that the DNA test should not to be directed as a matter of routine and in only deserving cases where a strong prima facie case is made out.
The Court noted that the contention of the murder accused that he is innocent would be proved if the DNA samples are not matched and it would come on the record that he was being falsely roped in the case.
Case title - M/S Bcits Pvt. Ltd. v. Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Another [WRIT - C No. - 15363 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court set aside a show cause notice sent after pre-mediation as the Court noted that the respondent (a government authority) had already made up their mind and had expressed their decision in the notice while issuing the same to the petitioner (M/S Bcits Pvt. Ltd.).
"...even if the petitioner offers its explanation, it would be an empty formality and a futile exercise. Fairness demanded that the respondent should have taken care to keep their mind open to the issues while seeking an explanation," remarked the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Dinesh Pathak.
Case title - Fayanath Yadav S/O Late Devdutt Yadav (Fourth Bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7404 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a dowry death accused (in jail for about 11 years) after it expressed its anguish over the poor progress of the trial in the case.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was essentially dealing with the fourth bail application of one Fayanath Yadav booked in a criminal case registered against him under Sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case title - Javed v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 890 of 2002]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 363
In a judgment delivered last week, the Allahabad High Court modified the conviction of a murder accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC as it noted that the culpable homicide was committed without premeditation on being called a Kafir (meaning thereby the person who does not believe in religion),
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi modified the conviction of one Javed as it stressed that the incident had occurred because of the deceased calling him (accused/appellant) a Kafir cannot be said that it was a premeditated murder.
Income Tax Officers Are Frequently Violating Principles Of Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Nabco Products Private Limited versus Union of India and Ors.
The Allahabad High Court criticized the Income Tax Authorities for frequently violating the principles of natural justice.
The Court ruled that the harassment caused to the assessees and the breach of principles of natural justice by the Income Tax Officers has become uncontrolled due to the absence of an effective system of accountability of the erring officers.
Case title - Babu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2878 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 365
"...no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream," the Allahabad High Court observed as it modified the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi further stressed that undue harshness should be avoided while sentencing keeping in view the reformative approach underlying our criminal justice system.
Case title - Raj Kishore @ Pappu v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1443 of 2008]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in absence of cogent evidence that the Murder accused was in the house with the deceased at the relevant time, the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act can not be pressed into service to put the onus on him to explain as to under what circumstances the deceased died.
With this, the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi set aside the order and judgment of Sessions Judge, Etah in 2003 convicting and sentencing one Raj Kishore @ Pappu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Appeal U/S 372 CrPC For Enhancement Of Punishment Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Archana Devi v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 1 of 2014]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC is not maintainable if it has been filed seeking enhancement of punishment awarded to the accused.
It may be noted that Section 372 CrPC provides a right 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] to move an appeal on three grounds namely
(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;
(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence;
(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).
Case title - Neha Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 20091 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 368
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, an elected member of the Kshettra Panchayat shall be deemed to have vacated his office from the date on which notice of his resignation is received in the office of Kshetra Panchayat.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava further observed that the vacancy in the office of Kshettra Panchayat becomes effective from the date, the resignation notice of a member is received in the office of the Kshetra Panchayat.
Case title - Vikas Kumar Alias Vikas Agrahari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5658 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 369
Stressing that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigation, the Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000/- on a petitioner who concealed material facts from the court that he had earlier filed two anticipatory bail applications and did not comply with court's orders.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav imposed costs on Vikas Kumar Alias Vikas Agrahari (petitioner) who moved the Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him under sections 417, 376, 504, 506 IPC.
Case title - Amar Singh v. State [JAIL APPEAL No. - 5100 of 2011]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction order passed against a rape accused as it found each and every part of the testimony of the prosecutrix to be 'infirm', 'doubtful', and 'contradictory'.
Significantly, the accused has already been released after serving a full sentence after getting the benefit of a remission period.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar found that in support of the testimony of the prosecutrix no corroborative evidence was presented before the Court and that the prosecution had not been able to prove the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, and the manner of occurrence.
Case title - Triyugi Nath Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C. No.- 10 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the amendments made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009, creating a substantive right of appeal for the 'victim' is not retrospective in nature.
Meaning thereby, a 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of CrPC] has no right to prefer an appeal against an order passed before December 31, 2009, acquitting the accused/punishing him for a lesser offence/imposing inadequate compensation.
Case title - Dr. Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1751 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former BSP MLA Dr. Vijay Kumar, the prime accused in the Shikhar Srivastava murder case as the Court noted that he is a resourceful person who could evade his arrest for four long years and might have even managed the CID probe if the HC had not intervened.
Observing that the accused was not allowing the trial to proceed, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh denied him bail after noting that if released on bail, he would be in a position to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.
Case title - Nirbhay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others along with connected pleas
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court (division bench) has ruled that in view of Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, teachers can be deployed for election duty even before issuance of the notification relating to elections to Local Body, a State Assembly or the Parliament.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh further ruled that the teachers cannot be deployed during teaching days or teaching hours but can be on non-teaching days and non-teaching hours.
Essentially, the bench was answering the reference made to it by the Single Judge vide its order dated November 11, 2021, regarding the allotment of election duties (before or after the issuance of election notification) to teachers on teaching days/during teaching hours.
Case title - Ajay Kumar Yadav And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court has observed that candidates cannot claim as a matter of right that recruitment on any post should be made every year. With this, the Court denied relief to certain over-aged Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam - 2022 candidates.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also emphasized that due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filing the posts year-wise, the candidates cannot get a right to participate in the selection process being over-aged.
Case Title: SR Cold Storage versus Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court has directed that the Union of India or other authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not interfere with the quasi-judicial functions and discharge of statutory duties by the Assessing Officers unless permitted by the Income Tax Act.
Further, the High Court directed the Union of India to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the information fed on data-base/ portal of the revenue department is verified in reality, and not as an empty formality, before initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Chauhan And 186 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others along with connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the entire Police Establishment including the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) shall be deemed to be one Police Force. and that transfer can be made from PAC to Civil Police or vice versa.
With this, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery upheld the order of the UP Govt transferring constables and head constables in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (UPPAC) to the civil police and dismissed dozens of petitions filed against the transfer.
Case title - Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [WRIT - A No. - 47252 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
"The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis suffered by the bereaved family due to the unexpected death of the employee concerned," the Court remarked.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while dismissing the plea of one Sanjay Kumar Singh who sought appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his adoptive father, who died in harness in January 1995.
The Court also held that the claim of the petitioner for a compassionate appointment at a belated stage, after 27 years of the death of his father, cannot be sustained.
Case Title - Smt. Kiran Kunwar And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15581 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the order of taking cognizance has been passed on the first page of the charge-sheet in the hand writing not by filling up the proforma then the summoning order carried on the order-sheet on printed proforma won't be invalid.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam clarified that if after taking cognizance of the police charge sheet by way of a written order, summons is issued on the printed proforma, then it cannot be said that the cognizance order is a proforma order.
The Court was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by the applicants seeking to quash the cognizance order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.
Case title - Azahar Khan v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Azahar Khan accused of assaulting the police officers, damaging police bikes by setting them on fire, and also causing damage to public property during the CAA-NRC Protests.
As per the prosecution's case, a protest against NRC and CAB was organized by Muslim Clerics (Ulemas) of Rampur city and they called the public at Eidgah on December 21, 2019.
In the night of December 20, 2019, the Muslim clerics of Rampur City assured the police administration that considering the atmosphere of Rampur city, the procession has been canceled. The next morning also, the clerics again assured the police that no crowd will be gathered but probably the clerics did not inform the police in this regard.
Case title - Gaurav @ Govind v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 380
The Allahabad High Court explained the difference between the Section 174 CrPC [Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.] and Section 157 CrPC [Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry].
The Court emphasized that the preparation of inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is in fact in the nature of inquiry, and the same cannot be equated with the investigation contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C. which commences after lodging of F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Case title - Km. Mohini v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 4174 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be given to a sister in the presence of a wife.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed that under the UP Dying in Harness Rules 1974 as amended by 2021 rules, a wife has the first right to a compassionate appointment, and in her presence, the Sister does not have the right to a compassionate appointment.
Case title - In Re v. Shri Chandan Kumar, Investigating Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court sentenced a police officer to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days after holding him guilty of contempt for deliberately bypassing the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
As per the Arnesh Kumar judgment, the arrest should be the exception where the offence is punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment, and notice for appearance under Section 41A CrPC should be served on the accused in such cases instead of arrest. The arrest can be made in exceptional circumstances in such cases, but the reasons have to be recorded in writing.
Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50000 For Arbitrary Cancellation of GST Registration
Case Title: Drs Wood Products Lucknow Versus State Of U.P.
Case Citation: : 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for the arbitrary cancellation of GST registration.
The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the arbitrary exercise of power to cancel the registration in the manner in which it has been done has adversely affected the petitioner. It has also had a negative impact on the revenues that could have flowed into the coffers of GST had the petitioner been allowed to conduct commercial activities. The actions were clearly not in consonance with the ease of doing business, which is being promoted at all levels.
Case title - Intezamia Committee Shahi Masjid v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 15737 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ plea moved against the proposed removal of the Shahi Masjid located at G.T. Road, Saidabad (purportedly more than 100 years old) for the purposes of a state highway widening project.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) refused to entertain the plea moved Intezamia Committee Shahi Masjid by taking into account the submission made by the official authoritires that the Masjid is an encroachment on the government land.
Case title - Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 385
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the transport of cow skin leather does not amount to any contravention of provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and therefore, the Magistrate has power under sections 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. to release a vehicle by which allegedly skin leather of cow or its progeny was transported.
With this, the bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam set aside an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra rejecting the application filed by the revisionist seeking the release of his vehicle allegedly used to transport Cow Skin Leather.
Case title - Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5776 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the police officials exceed, to some extent, their authority in the discharge of their official/public duty, then also sanction would be required under section 197 CrPC for their prosecution.
Section 197 Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution of Judges and Public Servants wherein sanction of the Government is stipulated for taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh categorically held that the court is barred to take cognizance of an alleged offence committed by the police personnel, which may be in excess of his official/public duty, if the prosecution has been initiated against such personnel without required sanction u/s 197 CrPC.
Case Title - Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a murder accused who was summoned in a 'cursory manner' under section 319 of CrPC by the trial court based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the applicant was not even named in the F.I.R. and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the premise of statements of witnesses in the trial court.
Under Section 319 CrPC, the Court has been given the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence.
Case title - Alam @ Mohammad Alam v. State Of U.P. and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Siddique Kappan's Co-Accused, Mohammad Alam, a Cab Driver, in connection with the 'Hathras Conspiracy Case'. The Court observed that no incriminating article was recovered from his possession.
UAPA Accused Alam, who was arrested on October 5, 2020, while on his way to Hathras, has been granted bail by the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav as it found no complicity and involvement of the appellant with the terrorist activities or any other activity against the nation.
Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey's Wife Granted Anticipatory Bail By Allahabad High Court In Cheating Case
Case title - Richa Dubey v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION US 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7168 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the wife of slain gangster Vikas Dubey (of Bikru, Kanpur) in a case registered against her under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC for allegedly using her servant's SIM card without his will.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta granted her grant anticipatory bail to the applicant till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
Case Title - Smt. Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti Thru. Secy. Adv. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. The Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment New Delhi And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking enhancement of the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of the employees of the State Government who are differently abled.
The petitioner (Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti) argued that since the differently-abled government employees working in the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab have been given the benefit of age of superannuation of 62 years, whereas in the State of U.P., the age of superannuation of differently-abled employees is 60 years, hence such employees in the State of U.P. have been discriminated against.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And Another v. Dr Sujoy Lal Thaosen,Director And 2 Others [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4616 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 391
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to comply with its March 7, 2022 order wherein it had directed the UOI and SSB to consider the candidature of 3 SSB Exam Candidates who were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), in case they remove such tattoo.
On March 7, 2022, the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma had directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
Case title - Mohd.Shakib v. State of U.P. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23143 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any of the provisions of the UP Cow Slaughter Act.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam further held that no permit is required to transport the cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
With this, the court set aside an order passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi to seize a vehicle on the allegations that the same was carrying animals for the purpose of cow slaughtering without valid permission.
Able-Bodied Husband Can't Argue That He Isn't In Position To Maintain His Wife: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vaibhav Singh v. Smt. Divyashika Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 554 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an able-bodied husband cannot argue that he is not in a position to maintain his wife.
The observation was made while dismissing an appeal filed by the Husband against the order passed by the family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings] in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the husband.
Case title - Ramkrit Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10162 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 394
"Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a concern for civilized society. Times and again the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters," observed Allahabad High Court as it denied bail to a cop in connection with the custodial death of a 24-year-old man.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal categorically observed that it was not only a case of police excess but a clear-cut case of abuse of police powers and police high-handedness.
Case title - Ashish Yadav v. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23834 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court has requested the High Court Legal Services Committee Allahabad to appoint lady counsels to represent the victims especially when the victims are minor girls.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was essentially dealing with the bail plea of a POCSO Accused when it noted that very few lady counsels appear to represent the victims from the side of the High Court Legal Services Committee.
"The High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad has been empanelled counsels to represent the victims. However, it is noticed that very few lady counsels have appeared for the victims. In such circumstances, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad is requested to appoint lady counsels to represent the victims especially when the victims are minor girls," the Court said.
Case title - Ishrat v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1935 of 1992]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and 3-year imprisonment awarded to a man who had mutilated the private part of a 4-year-old girl in the year 1988 and was convicted by the Sessions Court under sections 324 and 354 IPC.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal categorically held that mutilating the private part of the minor girl cannot be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues and that the accused had committed the act out of severe sexual lust and a sadistic approach.
"This is one of the most serious and diabolic offence committed against a minor girl of tender age of four years," the Court remarked as it canceled the Bail bonds of the accused-appellant and he was directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence.
Case title - Abbas Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko [Criminal Misc, Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 1396 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) last week denied anticipatory bail to Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Arms License case.
Denying him bail, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh took into account the fact that Ansari had been avoiding the process of the Court, against whom proclamation had been issued by the Court.
"Considering the serious allegations that accused-applicant got registered his arm license fraudulently and obtained prohibited Barrels, weapons and cartridges in large numbers by taking ground of shooting; and he has purchased weapons and cartridges, which are prohibited in shooting practice and against the Notification dated 4.8.2014 of the Government of India, and also considering the fact that accused-applicant has been avoiding the process of the Court, against whom proclamation has been issued, this Court does not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant."
Case title - Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another v. U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 398
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Mathura Court to decide on two applications pending before it, filed in connection with the Sri Krishna Janambhumi Dispute, within 4 months. The applications essentially seek a survey of the disputed site and the appointment of a court commissioner for the purpose of the survey.
The Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal issued this order on a plea made by Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another by observing thus:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the concerned court below to consider and decide application dated 13.5.2022 i.e. paper no. 35 Ga and 37 Ga u/s 26 CPC pending in aforesaid case in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment."
Case title - Kanta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 549 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court last week upheld the conviction of a man under Section 304 of the IPC who was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 (II) of the IPC for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the year 1981.
Stressing that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witnes, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
"Merely because the witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established...It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. There is no bar in law on examining family members as witness. Evidence of a related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy," the Court further remarked.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey's Brother In Cheating Case
Case title - Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu v. State Of U.P., Through Secretary Home Govt. Of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54178 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the slain gangster Vikas Dubey's brother Deepak Dubey in connection with a cheating case. The allegation against Dubey is that he was found using a sim card registered in someone else's name with the intention to commit crime.
However, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding the complicity of the accused, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the bench of Justice Siddharth granted him bail.
Case title - Rajdhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3607 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Magistrate/Special Judge, NDPS Act has the power to consider the application for the interim custody of the conveyance/ vehicle (seized under the NDPS Act) under the provision of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
"A perusal of Section 36- C and 51 of the NDPS Act indicates that the provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not in contradictions with the special Act NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure for interim custody of the vehicle is prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. specifically deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial and the procedure to be followed by the police upon seizure of property," the bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) remarked.
Case title - Gabbar Patel @ Dharmendra v. State [JAIL APPEAL No. - 5752 of 2007]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 402
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if an accused pleads guilty in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, even then the prosecution has to establish its case beyond so as to obtain an order of the court regarding the guilt of the accused.
"...mere stating of being guilty (by the accused) in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. will end the issue and would lead the route only to the guilt of the accused without prosecution establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt against him through cogent, reliable and admissible evidence," the bench of Justice Samit Gopal remarked.
With this, the Court acquitted Accused/Gabbar Patel of charges under section 307 IPC by extending the benefit of the doubt.
Case title - Dr. Vijay Arora v. King George Medical University Thru. Registrar Lko And Others [WRIT - C No. - 2917 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court set aside a suspension order passed against a junior resident doctor who was restrained from taking up any medical work on the allegation that he had sexually abused the daughter of a patient
The Court noted that there was no allegation against the petitioner (a junior resident doctor) with regard to any misconduct of a sexual nature so as to warrant the punishment as had been awarded to him.With this, the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia allowed a writ plea moved by Dr. Vijay Arora challenging his suspension order passed by the management of the King George Medical University, Lucknow.
Case title - Pramod Kumar Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. And 11 Others along with a connected plea [WRIT - A No. - 4225 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 404
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas challenging criteria of different yardsticks for physical efficiency tests for males and females for the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board Excise Constable recruitment exam.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the classification of men and women in physical efficiency is not arbitrary and therefore, the allegation of discrimination between men and women is baseless and cannot be accepted.
"In the present recruitment, females have succeeded in huge numbers and it appears that unsuccessful male candidates are not able to cope up with the fact that female have overnumbered them in merit. It is an example of 'male chauvinism' which is unacceptable in twenty first century," the Court further remarked.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Tweeting Offensive Comments Against Hindu Women
Case title - Mohd. Saif Ali v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31532 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High court has granted bail to one Mohd. Saif Ali, who has been accused of posting certain offensive tweets against the modesty of Hindu women. The Court observed that Said had made out a case of bail.
Essentially, the bench of Justice Deepak Verma ordered to release him bail in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused.
Case title - Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10258 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case registered against a man as it noted that the accused man and victim-wife (who was a minor at the time of the incident) were 'happily' living with each other as husband and wife.
The bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary granted bail to one Gufran Shaikh who had been booked under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
Case title - Annu Tandon and three others v. State Through Railway Protection Force [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 638 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Stressing that in democracy under our Constitution, people have the right to protest against Government policies/action/inaction, provided the protest does not lead to the commission of an offence by the protesters, the Allahabad High Court today modified the sentence awarded to Ex-MP Annu Tandon and others in connection with a 'Rail Roko Protest' Case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters and by and large, it was a peaceful and symbolic protest.
Case title - Eklavya Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.P.W.D. And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that after the retirement of a government servant, the state government is empowered under regulation Rule 351- A of the Civil Service Regulations to order the recovery from his/her pension, however, the same can be done only where it is established that some financial loss has been caused to the State.
With this, the bench of Justice Alok Mathur quashed an order of the UP Government holding the petitioner (retired Executive Engineer) guilty and awarding a punishment of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of three years.
Case title - Peeyush Kumar Jain v. Union of India [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21223 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kanpur-based Perfume businessman, Peeyush Jain in connection with a case registered against him for allegedly stashing cash amounting to Rs. 196.57 Crores. He has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.10 Lakhs and two reliable sureties each of the like amount.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi granted him bail as it noted that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so.
"The position of law regarding grant of bail which emerges from the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, is that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail in economic offences remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. It is not advisable to categorize all economic offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed," the Court remarked.
Case title - Satakshi Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Dept. Lucknow And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 5114 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation regarding the time difference between the first and second child for the grant of maternity benefits. A
With this, the Court granted relief to an Inter College lecturer whose application for maternity leave had been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook by contending that the same contains a restriction that the second maternity leave cannot be granted where there is a difference of less than two years between the end of the first maternity leave and grant of second maternity leave.
Case title - Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9799 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a self-styled international Hindu Leader and Yogi Sena Pramukh, Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Hindu in a Gangster Act Case.
The prosecution under the Gangster Act had been launched against Sharma on the basis of a criminal case registered against him for allegedly misusing the popularity of the present Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, and fooling various persons to deposit money in bank accounts run by him.
Case title - Dr. B.R. Ambedker Granthalaya Evam Jan Kalyan v. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2129 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 412
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the orders of the Uttar Pradesh Government recognizing or acknowledging 17 Other Backward Classes sub-castes as Scheduled Castes. The Court said that this exercise could have been undertaken only by way of parliamentary law.
"The provisions of Article 341 of the Constitution do not leave any scope for including any Caste or Group to the list of Scheduled Caste in a State provided by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, except by law made by Parliament," the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir held.
Case title - Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5954 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused cannot ask the trial Court for a direction to the prosecuting agency that a shred of particular evidence is collected which may be in his favor.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh dismissed a petition moved by Former IPS Officer Amitabh Thakur, who had sought the preservation of the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the then Additional Chief Secretary Home, DGP, ADG Women's Cell, Police Commissioner Lucknow along with other police officials.
Case title - Mohd. Sarfaraz v. Mohd. Abid And 3 Others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 528 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 414
While dismissing a plea filed seeking transfer of a civil case to another court, the Allahabad High Court remarked that a mindset has developed among the general public to overawe Judges by complaining and maligning them on baseless allegations.
The petitioner, Mohd. Sarfaraz had sought the transfer of the case from the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nagina, District - Bijnore to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in the Judgeship of Bijnore by leveling allegations against the Presiding Officer, Civil Judge (Jr. Division).
Case title - Sri Bal Ganesh Pooja Mahotsav Samiti Thru. President Laxmi Niwas Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5854 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 415
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the administrative authorities cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for law and order and maintaining tranquility to ensure that the religious practices and rituals are observed freely and without any invasion of public tranquility.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla further remarked that administrative authorities are required to blend their decision and not be indifferent to the people of faith.
With this, the Court disposed of a plea seeking a writ of mandamus to the Shravasti District Administration to allow the representation filed by the petitioner [Sri Bal Ganesh Pooja Mahotsav Samiti] seeking permission to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi between August 31 to September 6 and to allow idol immersion.
Case title - Smt. Neelam Sharma And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 635 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court recently took a dim view of the way Arya Samaj organizes marriages as it observed that the 'Samaj' has misused their beliefs in organizing the marriages without even considering the genuineness of documents.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further held that the certificate issued by Arya Samaj alone doesn't prove the legality of a marriage. With this, the Court dismissed a Habeas Corpus Plea filed by the husband to regain his wife.
Case Title: Sohel Ahmad Siddiqui v. Noorul Huda English Medium School, Matters Under Article 227 No. 5252 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act cannot be rejected merely because the original agreement or its certified copy was not on record when the parties do not dispute the existence of the agreement.
The Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai held that a joint reading of Section 8 with Section 7(4) of the A&C Act leads to the conclusion that requirement of filing the original agreement or its certified copy as provided under Section 8(2) is not a mandatory requirement and the judicial authority shall decide the application if the existence of the arbitration agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
GST Dept. Can Only Seize Goods In Transit And Not From Godown : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has held that the goods lying in the gowndown cannot be seized by invoking section 129 of the CGST Act. The power of seizure can be exercised only in the case of goods in transit and not for goods lying in godown.
The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that it is unbelievable that two (not one) authorities of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department chose to act with negligence. The provision of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to a search and seizure operation. The department was unmindful of the Act as no action was taken under Section 67. Section 67 of the CGST relates to the existence of "reasons to believe" that premise is subject to search and seizure of goods or documents found therein.
Case title - Waseem v. State of U.P. and Another alonhg with connected matters
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 419
The Uttar Pradesh Government has informed the Allahabad High Court that it has taken some significant decisions to improve and reform the police investigation system. The decision was taken in a meeting convened on August 26, 2022, under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The government has also assured the High Court that the decision taken by the State Government shall be effectively implemented as expeditiously as possible not later than two months and that certain other steps shall also be taken which are needed for a fair investigation.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Sarvan and connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death penalty awarded to a man who committed the murder of his wife and children on account of an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law) in the year 2009.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav concluded that in view of the manner in which offence was committed and also the magnitude of the crime, it could be placed under the category of anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime.
With this, the Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the convict had killed six persons in the most brutal, grotesque, diabolical, and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for exemplary punishment.
Case title - Rajnish v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20805 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 421
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a murder accused who spent more than 11 years in Jail as he could not get access to legal aid to move his bail application before the Court.
While granting him bail, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus:
"This is the first bail application which has been moved by the applicant before this Court. The applicant belongs to the bottom heap of humanity and unfortunately forgotten class of citizens. He did not have the resources to engage a counsel nor was he given to access to legal aid for these long years. The constitutional promise of securing justice has been denied to him. This appears to be a systemic failure."
Case title - Shamshad v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 2994 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 422
The Allahabad High Court has observed that recovery of an article/weapon from a place hitherto unknown to anybody else including the investigating officer, is a fact that underlines the confirmation theory which is at the heart of provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus as it affirmed the conviction of a murder accused who had murdered his pregnant step-mother along with her three kids i.e., his step-siblings.
The Court also took into account the fact that the accused had himself retrieved a blood-stained axe, hidden inside the bushes in the presence of the police and a witness [PW9-Ishrar] on the next of the incident and the same was an admissible piece of evidence under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
Case title - Ratnesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 523 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a CBI probe and SIT inquiry against two government officers in the Public Works Department alleging that they had earned hundreds of crores by misuse of their position.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that the petitioner had not disclosed his credentials and it appeared that he was acting at the instance of someone else.
Case title - Julfikar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7968 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to one Julfikar who has been accused of subjecting a 9-year-old boy to forced circumcision for religious conversion purposes.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant (Julfikar), he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.
As per the FIR, accessed by Live Law, Ghaziabad police received a piece of information through social media against the applicant with the allegation that he had converted the religion of the 9-Year-Old boy by adopting the correct procedure i.e. writing 'godnama' on a stamp of Rs. 50/- and by cutting the exterior part of the penis by a sharp-edged weapon.
The accused was booked under Section 323, 326, 120-B IPC, Section 75/80 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 3/5 of U.P. Law Against Religion Prohibition of Conversion Act.
Case title - Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher Education) And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18302 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 425
In a significant order affirming the importance of human dignity, the Allahabad High Court granted Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to a differently abled person (divyang) who was forced to ride a bicycle during an interview for an appointment on the post of Library Peon at a Government Degree College.
"The amount of compensation has been awarded to let the petitioner know, the State may take time to hear & understand its citizen and his plight but, it is neither deaf nor heartless as may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek justice. The citizen works at the heart of the giant being the State is. Unless the heart beats freely, the being cannot thrive," the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh remarked as it partly allowed the plea filed by 'Divyang' man Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
Case title - Suab And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23361 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the Chargesheet filed against 5 men including an engineer by profession, accusing them of pelting stones at police personnel in Bijnor district during the anti-CAA protests in 2019.
The bench of Justice Samir Jain noted that despite the fact that during the relevant time, section 144 Cr.P.C. had already been invoked in the city, a mob, which allegedly included the applicants, gathered and pelted stones at the police personnel, due to which a constable got injured.
Therefore, the Court held, that since the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences against the applicants, the charge sheet pending against the applicants cannot be quashed.
Case title - Anand Giri alias Ashok Kumar Chotiya v. State of U.P. and another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 51323 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application filed by Anand Giri, the prime accused in the alleged suicidal death of Mahant Narendra Giri who was the President of Akhil Bhartiya Akhada Parishad as well as the Mahant/Head of Shri Math "Baghambari Gaddi", Allahpur, Prayagraj and "Shri Bade/Lete Hanuman Ji Temple", Prayagraj.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that the materials collected by the C.B.I. during the investigation indicated that on account of the acts of Anand Giri (booked for abetting suicide) and coaccused, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to die by suicide.
Case title - Shyam Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17591 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court observed that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is the best judge to decide which land would be suitable for the construction of the Highways and that no project can be stopped at the behest of one person who thinks that his land is not important for the widening of National Highway.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that while dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioners [Shyam Singh And Another] praying that their land should not be acquired for the construction of the National Highway.
Case title - Manoj Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27038 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked for committing an Aggravated Sexual Assault (punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act) upon a 8 year old girl as her parents refused to get her medically examined.
The bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) granted bail to accused Manoj Saxena taking into account the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Apex Court's dictum in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another (2018) 2 SCC 22
Case Title: Vikas Gupta Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has not recorded satisfaction under his signature prior to the issuance of a reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Chandra Kumar Rai has observed that subsequent to the issuance of the reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, at the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices, he had no jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notices. Consequently, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 were without jurisdiction.
Case Title: Varun Gupta Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that the department has neither recorded the opinion nor referred to any tangible material which necessitated him to pass the provisional attachment order to protect the interest of the government revenue.
The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has directed the department to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner/assessee.
Case Title: M/s. Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi versus U.O.I.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 432
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where the parties have failed to specifically mention the seat of arbitration and have participated in the arbitral proceedings at a place without any protest, the parties shall be said to have determined, by their conduct, the said venue of arbitral proceedings as also the seat of arbitration. Hence, the courts at the said place would have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitral proceedings.
The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that an order rejecting an application seeking return of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) involves no adjudication under Section 34 and hence, the same is not appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; therefore, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the said order.
Case title - Aditya Kumar v. Union Of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42918 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as it noted that the constables of the Railway Police Force, who witnessed the alleged recovery, search, and seizure, cannot be said to be independent witnesses.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that although the search and seizure were conducted at a Railway Station, there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery as the constables of the Railway Police Force cannot be said to be independent witnesses.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Mahfooz Ansari And 6 Ors. [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 316 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of 7 murder accused in view of the fact that there was an enormous time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive together and when the deceased was found dead.
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar further took into account that there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of the eyewitness, there was a delay in lodging of the FIR, followed by the fact that CDR details did not match or mark the presence of accused with the deceased.
Case title - Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16961 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Emphasizing that the rights to file a bail without delay and access to legal aid of an eligible prisoner are intertwined, the Allahabad High Court suggested some significant positive measures so as to overcome the delay in filing of bail pleas by undertrial prisoners in absence of proper legal aid.
"The right of moving a bail application becomes illusory and personal liberty remains a distant dream if the right to legal aid of an entitled prisoner is not effectuated," the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed as it directed the State Legal Services Authority to devise a scheme for such undertrial prisoners who are unable to filed bail pleas due to lack of proper access to legal aid.
Case title - Mohd. Aman Khan v. Union of India and others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26085 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 436
"The students take admissions in Universities or any educational Institution for the purpose of education and not indulge in these kind of activities, which brings bad name to the great educational Institutions," remarked the Allahabad High Court as it dismissed a bunch of pleas raising issues pertaining to certain incidents (during the Anti-CAA Protest) which took place in Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir dismissed the pleas as it took into account an inquiry report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) submitted pursuant to the HC's directions, recommendations made therein, and the state government's response to it.
Case title - Ram Sewak v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Ors. [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 30758 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court upheld an order of the District Magistrate passed against a rape-murder accused under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as it noted that crimes against minor girls create a sensation in the locality and it is bound to disturb public order.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the accused (Ram Sewak) challenging the detention order passed against him by the DM under the National Security Act, 1980.
Case title - Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court observed that while denying or granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, much reliance can not be placed upon a social background or a social investigation report as they are usually prepared without proper research.
"...a social background or a social investigation report may have a very limited purpose to serve. The findings cannot be solely based on such reports, which are more than often very superficial and unscientific. It is common knowledge that social investigation reports are usually prepared in printed formats without proper research. In my opinion, not much reliance can be placed on such half-baked reports," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma remarked as it denied bail to a juvenile accused of committing murder while he was just over 13 years old.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Ram Autar [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2683 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Allowing a government appeal, the Allahabad High Court awarded life imprisonment to a man who had committed a murder in the year 1982. With this, the High Court set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of the accused by the Special Judge, Fatehpur in the year 1983.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar emphasized that merely after a lapse of sufficient time coupled with other factors, namely, the age of the accused and his resettlement, if any post acquittal by the trial court, cannot be a ground to bestow any benefit so as to wipe away the aftermath of commission of the crime.
Case title - Dr. Meraj Ali And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11924 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court quashed a 24-year-old criminal case as it stressed that a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also expressed its anguish that unnecessary and baseless criminal proceedings are pending for the last many years, as it noted that in the instant case, the criminal proceedings are pending 9 since 1998, i.e., for about 24 years and it has reached only up to the stage of discharge application.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 780 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court sentenced former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari to 7 years in jail after holding him guilty of intimidating a Jailer who was performing public duty by abusing him and pointing a revolver/pistol toward him, and threatening to kill him in the year 2003
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of Ansari by the Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in the year 2020 as it noted that the approach of the trial Court in evaluating the evidence before it was palpably erroneous.
Case title - Rajiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION 482 No. - 4392 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 442
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case registered against a man as it noted that the accused man and victim-wife (who was a minor at the time of the incident) married the applicant/accused out of her own sweet will and is living a happy married life with him.
"To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in the present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, the husband is taking care of his wife and in case, the husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, the wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare," the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed as it quashed the rape-POCSO case against the accused.
Case title - Anurag Dubey (Second bail) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1327 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 443
The Allahabad High Court observed that the second anticipatory bail application may be considered by the Court if the reason for rejecting the first bail application has been washed off.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail to one Anurag Dubey who has been booked under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 IPC. His first bail plea had been rejected by the Court in view of the fact that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him declaring him an absconder.
Case title - Rudra Dutt Sharma Alias Rudra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8819 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court disapproved of the approach of the sessions court in rejecting the bail application without application of judicial mind and in a routine manner in petty issues.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed that it is a very sorry state of affairs that in petty issues bail applications, the session courts deny bail to the accused, prompting them to move to the High Court for relief.
Case title - Rahul Pandey v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 14614 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Stressing that appearing in the examination is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad High Court permitted a railway exam candidate (who is 80% handicapped) to take an attendant to the examination centre.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan allowed the writ plea of the candidate (Rahul Pandey) by directing the competent Railway Authorities to allow him to carry one attendant, who would take him to the examination centre and to the examination room.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 779 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court sentenced former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari to 5 years in jail in connection with a 23-year-old case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside a 2020 order passed by the MP-MLA court acquitting Ansari of charges under the Gangsters Act in a case that was registered against him in the year 1999.
Case title - Ms. X Thru. Her Legal Guardian Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 6102 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bahraich to take requisite steps to provide compensation to a 12-year-old Rape survivor whose unwanted pregnancy was terminated earlier this month as per HC's order.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has further asked the Secretary, DLSA to take up the matter with the district authorities and submit a report to the Senior Registrar of thE Court as to the outcome of such efforts taken for the payment of compensation to the victim or her family as per the prevailing scheme i.e. U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.
Case title - Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Anther [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 408 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the retirement of a government servant, if such employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government, it is the Governor who can take action as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
With this, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that the penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on an officer/employee after his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation, however, withholding or withdrawing a pension and ordering the recovery from the pension is permissible and that too, by an order of the Governor as per the Article 351-A of the CSR.
Case Title: Bundu And 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court observed that a victim has no right in law to drop the case of a non-compoundable offence of serious and heinous nature which badly affects society.
The bench Justice Sameer Jain that such cases become a matter between the State and the accused and it is the duty of the State to ensure the law and order and to prosecute the offender in such cases.
Case title - Pawan Mishra v. State of U.P. along with the connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the event of the death of the victim, the statement made by her/his to any living person becomes relevant and admissible in evidence under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act if the same relates to cause of her/his death.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma further clarified that under Indian Law, it is not necessary that the person who made any declaration was actually expecting an assault that would kill him
Case title - Ambika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 8 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a finding of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 (3) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania further stressed that a revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings.
"Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on the revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on the fresh appraisal of evidence," the Court remarked.
Case title - Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a plea seeking registration of a complaint against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for his alleged 'objectional speech' delivered during an election campaign in Rajasthan's Alwar district in the year 2018.
CM Yogi Adityanath had allegedly said that "(Hindu God) Hanuman Ji was a forest dweller, deprived and a Dalit. Bajrang Bali worked to connect all Indian communities together, from north to south and east to west"
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the object of holding a general public meeting during elections is to address the gathering present there so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party.
"Conveying a press conference and/or giving an interview to the press is a totally different act than addressing a general public meeting in elections. A person holding a press conference and a person giving an interview to the press has a clear intention and message to the persons present that his speech or lecture or answers be published in newspaper and magazines. Addressing a general public meeting during elections for the purposes of canvassing elections is a totally different act with a different intention and object. The same is to address the gathering present at the spot so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party," the bench remarked.
Case title - Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION 482 No. - 23160 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur declining to accord permission to an application of the state, forwarded by the Prosecuting Officer under section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of a rape case against former Union minister Chinmayanand Saraswati.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also slammed the Uttar Pradesh Government for its decision to withdraw a case against Saraswati as it remarked that the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur had failed to spell out even a single good reason for the withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused.
Case title - Sapna v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24592 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court censured the conduct of a woman who protested in the courtroom against the grant of bail to an accused. Noting that she was purportedly from the informant's side, the bench of Justice Siddharth called her conduct to be unbecoming of a fair litigant.
Essentially, when the Court granted bail to accused Sapna, a woman, who was standing in court room protested in loud voice and was taken out forcibly by the lawyers and litigants. Not just that, she created lots of disturbance outside the court as well, the Court noted.
Case title - Rajendra Kumar And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6779 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the cancellation of bail cannot be done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
With this, the bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I sets aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Raebareli canceling the bail granted earlier to Rajendra Kumar and 2 others in connection with a criminal case.
The High Court noted that the impugned order canceling the bail was passed without issuing notice to the applicants/accused and without affording them a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and the same was patently illegal being in flagrant violation of Supreme Court rulings.
Case title - Shahzad v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION US 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9391 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person who has already been granted regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC and if it found that he has not misused the liberty, then he may be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC in connection with added sections related to the same crime.
With this, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted anticipatory bail to one Shahzad in connection with the offence under Section 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act.
Case title - Jitendra @ Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37894 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court recently held that it is not mandatory for an accused to be in physical custody at the time of filing the bail application. The Court clarified that if the accused is out of physical custody but his liberty is subject to the conditions imposed by the Court i.e. the accused is in constructive custody, he can apply for regular bail.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Vidyarthi observed thus while granting regular bail to one Jitendra who is facing charges under sections 420 and 120B of IPC. The Court noted that he had not been named in the FIR; rather, his name surfaced during the investigation.
Case title - Ajay Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1669 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 458
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the High Court of one State can grant transit bail in respect of a case registered within the jurisdiction of another High Court in the exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
"...there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed and the case is registered," the Court stressed.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted transit anticipatory bail to a man booked under Sections 406 & 420 IPC in connection with a case registered in Maharashtra
Case title - Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee [ELECTION PETITION No. - 10 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a piece of false information regarding the education qualification of an election candidate can't be termed a 'corrupt practice' within the meaning of subsection (2) or (4) of section 123 R.P. Act.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh further observed that the information regarding the educational qualifications of a candidate is not a vital and useful piece of information to the voter and thus, it cannot be said that any inconsistency or error in the affidavit of a candidate regarding candidate's educational qualification would amount to corrupt practice.
The Court also held that concealment of electricity dues or housing loans by a candidate would also not be termed as a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the R.P. Act.
Case title - Umesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7917 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to give a promotion to a Police Inspector posted in the Civil Police to the post of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
With this, the bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari set aside the order of the Additional Chief Secretary Home by which the name of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover envelop and juniors to him were granted promotion
Case title - Kailash v. State of U.P. and other connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an order of the Special Court granting/rejecting bail for the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is appealable before the HC under Section 14A of the 1989 Act.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further clarified that if the Special Court denies anticipatory bail to the accused, he may move an appeal against the bail denial order before the High Court under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, however, it would not be open to him to file an anticipatory bail before the High Court under Section 438 of CrPC.
Case title - Smt. Tulsarani And Another v. Union Of India And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 56 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts have no Jurisdiction to hear Applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded under the National Highways Act, 1956.
The bench of Justice J. J. Munir though clarified that an award of the Statutory Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged by an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the appropriate forum.
Case title - Azizurrahman v. Hamidunnisha @ Sharifunnisha [FIRST APPEAL No. - 700 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Stressing that as per the mandate of the Holy Quran, bigamy is not sanctified unless a man can do justice to orphans, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a Muslim man has to prevent himself to perform a second marriage if he is not capable of fostering his wife and children.
"The religious mandate of Sura 4 Ayat 3 (of Quran) is binding on all Muslim men which specifically mandates all Muslim men to deal justly with orphans and then they can marry women of their choice two or three or four but if a Muslim man fears that he will not be able to deal justly with them then only one. If a Muslim man is not capable of fostering his wife and children then as per the above mandate of the Holy Quran, he cannot marry the other woman," the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed.
Case title - Prveen Kashyap v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36810 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 464
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl (16-17 years old) after marrying her with her consent as the Court noted that the consent of the minor is no consent at all.
The bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) opined that even if the minor she left her home, solemnized marriage, and had physical relations with the applicant with her consent, her consent, being consent of the minor, cannot be said to be of any significance.
Case title - Monu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10567 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a POCSO accused booked for raping a minor girl (17 years old) with whom he allegedly eloped, on the condition that he would marry her within a period of one month and shall give all rights to her and his child as wife and daughter.
While granting him bail, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh took into consideration the stand of the prosecutrix and her father who stated that they had no objection if the accused is released on bail. The Court also noted the fact that the Girl had already delivered a child from the accused applicant.
Case title - Nadeem Ansari v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33710 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to one Nadeem Ansari who has been accused of posting a video on Facebook showing to behead former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
The bench of Justice Deepak Verma granted him bail considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, the complicity of the accused and larger mandate on Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title – Amarjeet v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Lko. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1687 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to a Rape accused till the completion of the investigation or till the filing of the police report/charge sheet.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted relief to the accused as it noted that both, the victim and accused have married each other and are living happily as husband and wife.
"Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the undisputed fact by the parties that the applicant and the prosecutrix got married and are living happily together, the investigation is going on and the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall never misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present application may be protected till completion of the investigation or till filing of the police report/ charge-sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C," the Court remarked.
Case title - Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3487 of 2019]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Taking into account the mandate of Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, the Allahabad High Court recently granted relief to online Marketplace Flipkart in connection with a case wherein a laptop with a different company processor was delivered to the customer by the seller listed on the Flipkart.
For context, Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 exempts the liability of intermediaries (like online marketplaces such as Flipkart) in certain cases. The provision states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it.
However, the provision will not apply if the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Govind Pasi along with a connected appeal
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court commuted the death penalty awarded to a rape and murder convict by the trial court to life imprisonment as it noted that the convict was of 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime in 2013 and now when he is around 29 year old, he has dependents in the form of wife and children.
"Convict/appellant was of 20 years of age at the time of the commission of crime now he has dependents in the form of wife and children. There is no evidence that the accused committed the crime with pre-planning or pre-ponderance. There is no evidence on record that there is no possibility of improvement in the conduct of the accused. No such evidence is adduced in the trial court that the accused is a hardened criminal. No criminal history of the appellant is stated during the trial," the bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal as it affirmed the conviction of the appellant while setting aside the death penalty of the appellant awarded by the trial court and converting the same to Life Term.
Case Title: Sujit & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that the Governor's power under Article 243Q of the Constitution, with respect to specifying transitional area of a Nagar Panchayat, is circumscribed by statutory stipulations.
A Division bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Rajendra Kumar-IV observed,
"The Governor while being invested with power to include or exclude any area in a transitional area, or a smaller urban area, in exercise of power under clause (2) of Article 243Q of the Constitution, read with Section 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 4, which mandates that before issuance of notification under Section 3, a draft proposal has to be published in the manner provided under Section 4, so as to apprise the general public of the inclusions/exclusions and if any person has any objection, he may file objection/suggestion."
Case title - Naresh Kumar Valmiki v. State of U.P. and others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 470
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is permissible for the Special Court designated under the SC/ST Act to take cognizance of an offence on itself by treating an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Samit Gopal observed thus as it held that the view taken by the Single Judge in the case of Soni Devi vs. State of U.P. and others: 2022(5)ADJ 64 is incorrect.
Case title - Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18458 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 471
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the influence of money in conducting an investigation is quite evident and it is a very big hurdle in the free and fair investigation of a crime and case.
Noting that under the pressure of work, police undertake a mechanical investigation of the crimes, the bench of Justice Siddharth further observed that the investigating officers are subjected to pressure by the influential persons of society to give a report as per their command.
Case title - Sandeep Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 9 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 536 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the choice of a life partner, the desire for personal intimacy, and the yearning to find love and fulfillment in a human relationship between two consenting adults cannot be interfered with by any other person.
With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a Habeas corpus plea filed by a husband after his wife/corpus submitted before the Court that she is willing to go with him and live her matrimonial life peacefully.
Case title - Lal Bihari Yadav v. Chairman/Sabhapati U.P. Legislative Council Vidhan Bhawan Lko & another [WRIT - C No. - 4493 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 473
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 which mandates the Speaker/Chairman of the house to recognize the leader of a party having the greatest numerical strength, to be the leader of the opposition.
The court further observed that if the Speaker recognizes any person who is the leader of a party in opposition having the greatest numerical strength as the leader of the opposition, he is doing so on the basis of the practice prevailing.
Case title - Mr.X(Minor) v. State Of U.P.And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1036 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has observed that factors such as the nature of the crime, the methodology adopted, the manner of commission, and the evidence available assume ample significance in deciding to deny bail to a juvenile.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus as it stressed that bail to a juvenile is not a must in all cases as it can be denied if, in the opinion of the Court, his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy 2017 | Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Judicial Probe
Case title - Lokesh Kumar Khurana and others v. Union of India and others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a bunch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Pleas seeking a judicial probe into the death of 63 children which took place in BRD Medical College (in Gorakhpur district) in 2017.
The PIL plea was dismissed by the bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir after taking into account the statement made by the state's counsel that the matter was inquired into and a report was submitted and the guilty doctors and staff were punished, and further, proper corrective measures were taken in all the hospitals.
Case title - Malati Devi v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 32813 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court stayed, for 6 weeks, the proposed demolition of a Prayagraj Hospital which is presently embroiled in controversy for allegedly administering Mosambi (sweet lime) juice instead of platelets to a 32-year-old dengue patient.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar gave the liberty to one Malati Devi who owns the land and the property in which the Hospital is presently functioning to file an objection to the demolition notice sent by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) within two weeks.
The Court gave this order on a writ plea moved by the petitioner challenging the demolition notice received by her.
Case title - Rama Nand v. Hira Lal [SECOND APPEAL No. - 1698 of 1990]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Magistrate has the power to enforce an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by issuing a warrant to the Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.
The bench of Justice J. J. Munir clarified that if read conjointly, Section 125(3) and Section 421 give power to the Magistrate to issue a warrant to the Collector for recovering the defaulted maintenance as arrears of land revenue.
Case title - Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7559 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court rejected the prayer of certain murder accused who sought a brain mapping test/NARCO/lie detector test upon themselves as well as the complainant so as to contract out the truth of the case.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori however, clarified that if the Investigating Officer, on his own, decides to get the said tests conducted, then he can get the test conducted subject to the consent of the accused.
Case title - Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17078 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court observed that the marriage of an individual is no ground to deny him/her a compassionate appointment as entering into a marital relationship doesn't raise a presumption that a person is financially stable.
With this, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan set aside an order of the DIG (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P denying compassionate appointment to the younger son of a UP Police constable who died during his service tenure.
Demand Of Tax and penalty can't be imposed on the basis of conjecture : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has held that the demand for tax and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of conjecture and surmise, especially in cases where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and E-way bill.
The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has observed, "As the respondent has not approached for availing of the benefits that flow from Section 129, coupled with the fact that the appellate authority found that the basis for initiating proceedings was non-existent, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in the exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India."
Case Title - In re v.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court closed contempt proceedings against an advocate who disrupted the working of the High Court on October 21 after the bench asked him to make changes to the cause title and hide the name of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law (the revisionist in the case).
The proceedings were dropped by a division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad after the contemnor (Advocate Sunil Kumar) tendered his unconditional apology orally as well as in writing.
Case title - Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6870 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a high-powered committee to inquire as to how NOCs and licenses were granted to the Hotel Levana Suites, where a major fire incident took 5 lives on September 5, without properly verifying the eligibility of the hotel to obtain such licenses/NOCs.
It may be noted that on September 09, 2022, a major fire engulfed the hotel Levana Suites, situated in a posh locality of the city of Lucknow and after several hours of persistent efforts of the rescue teams, the fire in the hotel was doused.
Case title - Arti Devi v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9242 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the statement of the 13-year-old boy that the applicant has committed an act being 'Gandi Harkat' (loosely translated as Dirty Act) would be prima facie sufficient ground to summon the accused (a lady in this case) as per Section 204 CrPC.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further clarified that such an act, if the commission of the same is proved in the trial, could amount to an offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act as even touching a private part of a child with sexual intent may fall under 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of POCSO Act.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Anti-CAA Protester Who Spent Over 26 Months In Jail
Case title - Haseen Alias Ishu v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35291 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged Anti-CAA Protesters, 26 months after he was arrested by Kanpur police. The bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed that the accused had not been named in the FIR and there was no evidence on record to indicate that he was a part of mob which particiapted in the protest.
The Court was essentially dealing with the bail plea of one Haseen Alias Ishu, who was in jail since August 22, 2020 for allegedly participating in the ruckus which took place on December 20, 2019 at Kanpur Nagar against the implementation of the Citizen Amendment Act in which people lost lives due to indiscriminate firing caused by the assailants and by the police.
Prayagraj Violence | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused-Student, In Jail Since June 2022
Case title - Mohd. Sajid v. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45548 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a student who spent around 5 months in jail in connection with the Prayagraj Violence case. The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh ordered his release on bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
On June 10, violence erupted in Atala and its adjoining localities in Prayagraj after youths assembled in large numbers after Friday prayers to protest against the controversial statements of BJP leader on the Prophet Mohammad.
Case title - Anil Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No 37337 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into and take suitable action in accordance with the law against an Advocate for allegedly running a business. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
The matter came to light while the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was dealing with the bail plea of an accused, booked for dishonestly withdrawing money from the account of a business firm, owned by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, an Advocate.
Case Title –Haji Mahboob Ahmad And Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Special CBI Court at Lucknow that acquitted all 32 persons (including prominent BJP leaders L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan Singh, etc) accused of hatching the criminal conspiracy behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque on December 6, 1992.
Case title - Aftaf @ Nafees @ Pappu v. State Of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court recently rapped the Uttar Pradesh state authorities for not considering the case of a rape accused (now acquitted by the High Court) for remission despite the fact that he spent over 19 years in jail (more than 21 years with remission).
The accused was convicted in a rape case [u/s 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act] in October 2003 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Case Title - Sagar v. State Of UP
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 304 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 304 (I) of the IPC for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder in 2011. The accused in the case spent more than 10 years in jail.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava noted that no incriminating circumstances were available against the accused and merely on the basis of last-seen evidence, the accused could not have been convicted.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Placing Remains Of Dead Cow Progeny In A Temple
Case title - Raheem v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50808 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 490
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of placing the remains of a dead cow progeny in a temple so as to hurt the religious sentiments of the public.
The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I granted bail to Raheem who was arrested on July 17 after being booked under Sections 153, 153A, 295, 295A, 120-B, 34 IPC, and Section 3/5/8 of UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
The FIR in the case was lodged by a Sub-Inspector working with the UP police, who got a piece of information on July 16, 2022, that in a Shiv Temple situated in his area, some unknown person had put the remains of a dead cow progeny to hurt the religious sentiments of the public.
Case title - Om Prakash v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2097 of 1982]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a man who raped a 10-year-old girl 43 years ago (in the year 1979) after finding the testimony of the victim to be reliable. The convict, presently on bail, has been directed to be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal also observed that the age of the accused cannot be a ground to extend any benefit to him in the crime committed by him. With this, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict against the judgment and order of the trial court sentencing him to undergo 6 years of imprisonment.
Case title - Dr. M Ismail Faruqui v. Shri Adityanath [WRIT - C No. - 7524 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 492
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea questioning continuance of Yogi Adityanath as the Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh. The Cout also imposed ₹11K costs on the petitioner, Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui for filing a 'misconceived' and 'frivolous' petition.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also slammed the petitioner for filing the instant petition despite the fact that an identical petition filed by him was dismissed by the Court as withdrawn in August this year.
Case title - Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8376 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Stressing that seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC is only a statutory right, the Allahabad High Court said that the second and successive anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta further observed that as opposed to Section 439 of CrPC (provision governing regular bail pleas), which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 438 of CrPC is merely a statutory right and the power to grant anticipatory bail does not flow from Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case title - Kailash Jaiswal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10241 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 494
The Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on the office of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur for initiating 'malicious' proceedings under the UP Goondas Act against a man in an attempt to coerce him to vacate the property, admittedly owned by him, and release the same in favour of the district administration.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian also directed the State Government to get the matter inquired into and initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the then-delinquent District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, K. Vijayendra Pandian.
Case title - Anurag Singh Bhadouriya (in FIR Anurag Bhadouriya) v. State Of UP. Thru Addl. Chief Secy/Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett Lko and Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court today refused to quash an FIR registered against Samajwadi Party Leader Anurag Bhadouria for allegedly making insulting and objectionable remarks against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and late Mahant Avaidyanath during a TV Debate show
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal rejected his plea seeking the quashing of his FIR and a stay on coercive action against him.
Case title - Sameer Khan v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 496
The Allahabad High Court last week denied bail to a man named Sameer Khan who has been accused of killing his 'paramour/wife', chopping her body into 6 pieces, and throwing it away in a secluded place in July 2020.
"Considering the allegations, heinousness of offence and the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail," the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh remarked.
As per the FIR lodged in the matter, the accused (Khan) had murdered her wife/paramour named Ayesha on July 5 2020 with an iron rod after a dispute erupted between them. After killing her, Khan allegedly chopped her body into 6 pieces, stuffed it in a briefcase and bag, threw it away from a car in a secluded place, and fled away.
Even If Penetration Was Very Slight The Act Would Constitute Rape: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 743 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the penetration was very slight and was not into the vagina, the same will bring the act within the definition of rape.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma further observed that in rape cases, the extent of penetration is immaterial and that the perineum is part of the private parts, which sheathes the urethra.
Case title - X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2521 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Denying bail to a Juvenile, a religious teacher, who allegedly raped an 8-year-old girl (his student), the Allahabad High Court today observed that he needed counseling by psychiatrists/experts not only for his own betterment but also for the health of society.
"He needs to be extended services of reformatory and rehabilitatory nature so that he can move without posing danger to himself as well as to the public and so that he can be brought back to the mainstream," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed.
Case title - Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 21333 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to count the period of ad-hoc service rendered to grant pensionary benefits to an employee who retired in 2013 with a regular service record of over 17 years.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi quashed an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad whereby the period of ad hoc service rendered by an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) had not been taken into account for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits to him.
Case title - Smt. Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 643 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) is not a civil court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, a case pending before it can't be transferred to any other court by the HC.
For context, LARRA is an "Authority" established by the appropriate Government under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case title - Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2670 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court observed that a period of 1.5 years is an 'extremely unreasonable long time' to keep disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee after the submission of an inquiry report.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed so while dealing with the case of one Yatendra Kumar (suspended General Manager, U.P. Nirman Nigam Ltd), challenging his suspension order passed by the UP Government in June 2020 in contemplation of departmental proceedings initiated against him.
Marriage Certificate Issued By Arya Samaj Has No Statutory Force: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman [FIRST APPEAL No. - 830 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court held that Marriage Certificates issued by Arya Samaj have no statutory force. It was further held that in the absence of a valid marriage, the marriage certificate of Arya Samaj is not proof of a valid marriage.
The observation came from the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV which was dealing with a first appeal filed by one Ashish Morya challenging an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur dismissing his application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
For Every Tree Removed, Ensure Two Are Grown: Allahabad High Court To State Govt
Case title - Anil Kumar v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Jal Shakti Deptt. Drinking Water And Sanitation New Delhi And Ors [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 789 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure that two trees are planted in place of every tree removed for the construction work under the Jal Shakti Mission to supply water to people.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava issued this order while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by one Anil Kumar.
Case title - Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And ors [WRIT - A No. - 2516 of 2019]
Case title - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to grant a minimum pay (at par with regular employees) to 4 IVth class contractual employees who are working with U.P. State Legal Services Authority since 2005.
This order came from the bench of Justice Alok Mathur which relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjeet Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 where it was observed that the employees, who are continuously discharging duties commensurate with regularly appointed persons, are also entitled to be paid the same wages in accordance with the provisions of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Case title - Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another [WRIT - A No. - 6428 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has restrained the UP Government, block-level officers, and various other departments from passing any orders for the engagement of Anganwadi Workers in any other work/duty including election duty.
"...this Court is of the considered view that work which is being discharged by Anganwadi Workers is of considerable importance, looking into the fact that in one block there is only one worker and in case that one Anganwadi Worker is assigned duty in elections or any other work then entire nursing and lactating woman including pregnant women would not be taken care of and would adversely affect the health of public at large," the Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed
Case title - Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3333 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court opined that even if the accused has not been arrested, if a dead body is discovered pursuant to the information elicited from the accused during police interrogation, the same would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed thus while relying upon the Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case of Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. 2002 (44) ACC 288.
In the Sangam Lal case (supra), a division bench of the HC had observed that in order to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary that the accused should have been under arrest and it is enough if he has come into the hands of a police officer or is under some sort of surveillance or restriction.
With this, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant/accused (Vidya Devi) who killed her daughter-in-law in connivance with her son (husband of the deceased) and husband in the year 1984. Finding that she is presently on bail, the Court canceled her personal bonds and surety bonds and ordered that she be sent to jail to serve the remaining part of her sentence (life imprisonment).
Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9023 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus as it rejected the anticipatory bail plea of one Archana Gupta, who has been accused of grabbing a piece of land property of the first informant on the basis of a forged and fictitious sale deed.
"After the filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, she wilfully absented herself before the trial court and due to this, till today trial against the applicant could not commence. Moreover, it is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail," the bench observed.
Case title - Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10301 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court on Monday expunged its remarks made against the District Judge of Varanasi, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha in its order dated November 21, 2022, in view of his bona fide intent in passing an order (admitting a revision petition without condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act).
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar expunged the observations made in the last fourth paragraph of his order dated 21st November 2022 regarding the conduct of District Judge, Varanasi Dr. Vishvesha. The relevant paragraph (now expunged) is reproduced below:
"In the present case, the ordersheet reflects that the District Judge, Varanasi is in the habit of committing impropriety in discharge of his judicial function."
Allahabad High Court Acquits Rape Convict Who Spent 18 Years In Jail With Remission
Case title - Raj Kumar v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7006 of 2009]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a rape convict languishing in jail for more than 18 years (with remission) as it found that neither the medical evidence nor the statement of prosecution witnesses supported the case against the rape convict.
"Once we analyze the evidence available on record, we find that neither the medical evidence nor the victim or her father in their deposition before the Court have supported the prosecution case. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore can not be read in isolation so as to form a basis for the conviction of the accused-appellant when the victim herself has not supported her previous stand in her deposition made before the Court," the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad remarked as it disagreed with the judgment and order of the trial court convicting Raj Kumar (appellant).
Case title - Shipra Hotels Limited And Anther v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate acting under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not required to give notice to the borrower at the stage of the decision or passing order pertaining to taking possession of the secured asset.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed that since the proceedings before the CMM/ DM under Section 14 of the Act are ministerial in nature, therefore, no opportunity for a hearing is required to be given to the borrower at this stage.
Case title - Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8292 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a Constitutional Court entrusts an investigation in a case to CBI and the role of a public servant emerges as an accused for committing such an offence, no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be required for prosecuting such a public servant.
In other words, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that if the CBI has probed a matter upon a direction of the High Court or Supreme Court, and has filed a charge sheet against a government/public servant, then there is no requirement to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the competent authority for prosecuting such a government/public servant (serving or retired).
Case title - Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5796 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Manjeet Yadav, who is an accused in the 2013 Deputy Superintendent Of Police Zia-ul Haq Murder Case in view of his long incarceration of 9 years in jail.
Essentially, Manjeet Yadav had moved to the High Court with the instant bail plea on the ground that he has been in jail for more than nine years from the date of his arrest, the prosecution has concluded the evidence of its witnesses and now, the defence witnesses are being examined.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 648 of 2021]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court has held that the rejection of registration solely on the ground of delay in moving the revocation application is not sustainable in law when the entire tax is deposited.
The single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that once the department has accepted the return and there are no outstanding dues, the department should not obstruct the business of an assessee.
Levana Suites Fire | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Owners, Manager Of Hotel
Case title - Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted bail to a manager and two owners/partners of the Hotel Levana Suites (in Lucknow), where a major fire incident took place on September 5 resulting in the killing of 4 people and leaving 7 others injured.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh granted bail to owners Rahul Agrawal and Rohit Agrawal and manager Sagar Srivastava by observing thus:
"There may have been some infraction of regulatory requirements to run a hotel, but that would not amount that the accused-applicants have been negligent or they failed to take due care of their guests or they had knowledge of fire accident, which would result in death/injuries to the guests."
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing Wife As She Couldn't Prepare Food For Him
Case title - Ganesh v. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. Â 3162 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court granted to a man who has been accused of killing his wife as she could not prepare food due to the non-availability of vegetables.
Taking into account the dying declaration of the deceased, the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav noted that there was no premeditation for the applicant--husband to commit the offence as alleged against him.
"Perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased clearly shows that on the date of the alleged incident i.e. on 25.07.2013 at noon, when the deceased could not prepare the food due to the non-availability of vegetables for which her husband lost his temper and started beating and poured kerosene oil upon her and burned. It means that there was no premeditation for the applicant to commit such offence as alleged against him.
Murder Convict Can't Be Sentenced To Punishment Less Than Life Imprisonment: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vakeel Quraishi and 2 Ors.v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4041 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 516
There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted of murder offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court observed in a judgment delivered recently.
The Court observed thus while relying upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nandu @ Nandua 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732, wherein it was ruled that any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC.
Case title - Hari Singh v. Shyam Bihari And 20 Others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 810 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 517
"...the citizens from all walks of life have developed an outlook, where they think that a Judge is an easy target and that they can malign the Judges' reputation, alleging anything against them, particularly, the Presiding Officers in subordinate Courts," the Allahabad High Court recently remarked as it dismissed a transfer application and imposed Rs. 10K Costs on the petitioner.
Dismissing the plea, the bench of Justice J. J. Munir further remarked that the impact of such transfer applications, if entertained and the Presiding Officer asked to put in his comments, may demoralize the subordinate judiciary.
Case Title - Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 828 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court rapped the Amethi District Administration for their act of filing successive FIRs and demolishing the buildings owned by the Members of the District Bar Association without serving them any notice.
"Lodging of the FIRs, undertaking demolitions and even making the complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. against the President and formal office bearers and members of the petitioner-Bar Association…in a span of less than a week shows not only undue haste on the part of the District Administration but such actions also demonstrate lack of good faith on the part of the authorities of District Administration," the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava remarked.
Case title - Pushpendra Chauhan vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27563 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Taking into account the definition of 'rape' as per Section 375 of IPC, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the offence of rape is made out even if there was consent on the part of the victim, however, willingness was absent.
It may be noted that sexual intercourse under 7 circumstances falling under Section 375 Of IPC can constitute rape and such circumstances are independent of each other, meaning thereby, even if one of the seven conditions is met, an act may amount to rape.
Case title - Vijay Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko. And ors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to certain candidates who participated in the process of recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools but their candidature was canceled by UP Goverment due to discrepancies/errors mentioned in the application form relating to "Shiksha Mitra".
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that in case a candidate furnishes some information in his/her online application form by way of which, he/she put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled.
Case title - Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7859 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 521
"In a democracy based on adult franchise, the political activist and other public-spirited persons would have right of protest against the Administration by staging Dharana etc. against perceived discrimination/atrocities, inaction, omission or commission of the State Authorities," the Allahabad High Court observed as it quashed a 2013 criminal case filed against the sitting minister in Uttar Pradesh Government and BJP MLA, Dinesh Pratap Singh.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also took into account the fact that the state government has already granted permission to withdraw from prosecution and pursuant to which application under Section 321 CrPC has already been filed before the court where the case is pending since 2013.
Case title – Anil vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 703 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court observed that no reverse burden could be placed on the accused with the aid of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act [Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge] when the prosecution has not discharged its burden first.
With this, the bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi set aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to one Anil for allegedly killing his wife in June 2013.
Case title - X (victim) vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13325 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for deliberately and wilfully trying to ensure that the accused in a minor's rape case, are absolved of charges during the investigation.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian further noted that the cop adorned upon himself the role of an investigating officer, as well, as of a Court, and threw the Indian Evidence Act to the wind by arriving at a conclusion that the statement of the minor victim was perse, false.
Case title - Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to Former MP Bal Kumar Patel who happens to be the brother of Slain dacoit Dadua in connection with a cheating and fraud case.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal also refused to quash the case against him registered under Sections 419, 420 and 406 of IPC by observing thus:
"…the prima facie allegations against the applicant, the law on the subject and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court does not deem it proper to quash the proceedings in the 482 petitions as prayed for."
Case title - Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I. [Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4633 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 525
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the anticipatory bail application of an accused is not maintainable if he is in jail in connection with another criminal case for similar or different offences.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal concluded thus while relying upon the Rajasthan High Court's ruling in the case of Sunil Kallani vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1654.
"This Court in view of the law laid down in the case of Sunil Kallani (supra) upholds the preliminary objection taken by the learned counsels for the C.B.I. and holds that since the applicant is in custody in connection with another case, the present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would not lie and would not be maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed," the Court observed.
Case title - Ansad Badruddin And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1763 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two alleged members of Popular Front of India (PFI) who have been booked under the UAPA for allegedly conspiring to commit the murder of people and Office Holders of Hindu Religious Organizations and for creating fear and terror in the Society.
"...considering the fact that the recovery being made from the appellants of seized objectionable articles including explosive substances, which was to be used by them to attack on Senior Leader of different Hindu Religious Organization and to blast different sensitive places of Uttar Pradesh, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellants, thus, it cannot be said that the involvement of the appellants in their nefarious designs could be ruled out and further looking into their criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial is in progress, which is fixed for framing charges against the appellants by the trial Court," the bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it refused to grant bail to the accused.
Case title - Devendra Pandey and others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 527
The Allahabad High Court convicted 43 Uttar Police Personnel under Section 304 Part I IPC in connection with the 1991 Pilibhit Encounter case wherein 10 Sikhs were killed treating them to be terrorists in an alleged fake encounter.
"It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he/she is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police have to arrest the accused and put them up for a trial," the bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav remarked in its 179 page order converting conviction of 43 cops/appellants from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Case title - Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has held that a victim of a predicate offence can claim a right of hearing to oppose the bail application of a person accused under the UP Gangsters Act.
Taking note of the rulings of the apex court in the cases of Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. LL 2021 SC 229 and Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus:
"If a victim of a predicate offence can file appeal challenging an order granting bail in an offence under the Gangsters Act, he certainly has the right to have an opportunity to oppose the application for grant of bail in an offence under the Act and for that purpose, he will have to be treated as a victim of the offence under the Gangsters Act. Where the victim of a predicate offence has come forward to participate in the proceeding by making submissions in opposition of a bail application, he must be given an opportunity of hearing."
Case title - Md. Umar Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1926 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Mohammad Umar Gautam who was arrested last year on the allegations of running a mass conversion racket in the State and converting the religion of over 1000 people across the state. The Court also denied bail to 4 other co-accused.
Taking into account the evidence collected against Gautam during of course of Investigation by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the charge sheet submitted against him, the bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav, while denying him bail, observed thus:
"(evidence) reflects that he was carrying on anti-national activities with the help of anti-social elements for achieving a nefarious design that would weaken the social fabric of the country and developed and spread hatredness amongst the people of different religions which would disturb the public tranquility and public order. He has also received huge sum of money in his personal accounts from different sources including foreign countries."
Case title - Amit Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9394 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 530
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to expedite the investigation against Bollywood Filmmaker Shirish Kunder in an FIR pertaining to an alleged tweet of Kunder dating back to 2017 calling UP CM Yogi Adityanath a Goon and comparing him with Don Dawood Ibrahim and a Rapist.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh ordered thus while hearing a criminal writ plea filed by one Amit Kumar Tiwari, who had lodged the FIR against Kunder in the year 2017.
Case Title: Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 531
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the outstanding amount showing on the web portal against the applicant/assessee was to be deleted immediately following the judgment, but the authorities allowed the outstanding amount to remain on the web portal for seven months, clearly violating the judgment.
The single bench of Justice Irshad Ali has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week on the contemnor who was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In case of default, the contemnor would suffer one day's further simple imprisonment.
Case title - Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 532
The Allahabad High Court ordered the State Bar Council to hold an inquiry against an Advocate whose name was mentioned on advertising leaflets for property sale, purchase, resolution of disputes, etc. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
Calling this gross professional misconduct, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ordered that a copy of its order be sent to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh along with a copy of the leaflet for taking necessary action in the matter after holding an inquiry.
Lucknow Gomti River Front 'Scam'| Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Project Advisor
Case title - Badri Shrestha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another [Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.2102 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to the former advisor of Lucknow's Gomti Riverfront project who has been accused of committing huge corruption and large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the project.
Looking at the magnitude of the corruption involved in the case, the allegations against the accused-applicant, Badri Shrestha and evidence available against him, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh denied him anticipatory bail.
Case title - Basoo Yadav vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29605 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the reports with regard to the non-cognizable cases could not be made the basis for rejecting an application for the issuance of a passport if they had not been investigated into.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ajit Singh observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed by one Basoo Yadav, who had moved the Court seeking the issuance of a passport in his favor.
Case Title: U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority versus M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while dealing with an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking to restrain the invocation or encashment of the Bank Guarantee, the Court is only required to consider the terms of the Bank Guarantee Agreement and not the conditions contained in the main Contract between the parties, in terms of which the guarantee was furnished.
The bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla held that when an application for interim measures is filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking interference in the invocation of an unconditional Bank Guarantee, the Court is not required to interpret the contract and/or form a prima facie opinion as to whether the beneficiary of the Bank Guarantee has wrongfully invoked the Bank Guarantee. The Court ruled that such an exercise can only be done in a substantive proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case title - Kamla Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court took serious note of the conduct of certain 'unruly' advocates who raised slogans, outside the courtroom, to assault police officers, including lady officers, who were summoned by the Court in connection with a criminal writ petition.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian directed the Registrar General to conduct a discreet inquiry and submit a report in this regard identifying the unruly advocates. The case would be registered as a separate case, the Court further ordered.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13642 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case initiated against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted in its order that except for the allegations that ₹5K was transferred in the bank account of the co-accused (Atikur Rahman), there is no other transaction, either in the bank account of Kappan or in the Co-accused bank account.
"Even if it is believed that part of the proceeds of the crime was transferred to the bank account of the co-accused, Atikur Rahman that itself may not be sufficient to prove that the accused-applicant has dealt with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,36,14,291/-which had been allegedly received by K.A. Rauf Sherif," the bench added (emphasis supplied).
Case title - Faisal Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23696 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Recently, the Allahabad Hih Court has explained as to when the written statements of the witnesses could be considered to be statements duly recorded under Section 161 of CrPC [examination of witnesses by police].
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that if the written statement has been submitted by the witness himself to the Investigating Officer and the IO assures its genuineness and same, if reduced in writing, shall be a statement duly recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
"...there is no illegality in taking a written statement of a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., when it was reduced in recording in case of diary in presence of witnesses, as well as I.O., has made questions also which are also reduced in writing along with answers. The I.O. has taken sufficient precautions to ensure it to be a written statement of witnesses only," the Court remarked.
Case title - XYZ vs. State of UP and 2 others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6105 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 539
The Allahabad High Court last week quashed an order of a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejecting an application moved by a rape victim under section 156 (3) CrPC seeking a police probe in the allegations of rape made by her against the accused.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also remanded the matter back to the CJM's court with a direction to re-consider and re-visit the entire matter once again and decide the same in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676.
Case title - Saleem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15195 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that he shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in the account of Gau Seva Aayog within a period of one month from his release.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order while adjudicating upon the bail plea moved by one Saleem who was booked under Sections 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Case title - Vaibhav Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 541
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Election Commission to immediately notify the Urban Local Body Polls without OBC reservation. The court ordered thus as it held that the state government doesn't fulfill the Triple Test Formality as laid down by the Apex Court.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Lavania also ordered that Polls notification shall include the reservation for women in terms of the constitutional provisions.
"While notifying the elections the seats and offices of Chairpersons, except those to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, shall be notified as for general/open category. The notification to be issued for elections shall include the reservation for women in terms of the constitutional provisions," the Court direcetd.
Case title - Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33329 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not for the court, in a bail matter, to form any opinion on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses as it would amount to evaluating the evidence.
With this, the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the second bail plea moved by a murder accused (Krishna Kant) on the new ground that since 2 of the witnesses of last seen evidence have not supported the prosecution's case and have been declared hostile, therefore, he should be granted bail.
Case title - Gulam Rashul vs. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 7291 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Explaining the scope of Section 201 IPC, the Allahabad High Court observed that removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of the murder to another place does not come within its ambit as the removal does not cause the disappearance of evidence of the commission of the murder.
Stressing that to constitute an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. there must be a disappearance of some evidence of the commission of offence, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian observed thus:
"Section 201 looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. Section 201 will apply only when the false information touching the offence with intent to screen the offender is given to those interested in bringing the offender to justice,"
