NOMINAL INDEXAnwar 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
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.