Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 478 - 510]
NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH (OCTOBER 2022)
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.