NOMINAL INDEX Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another Govind v. State of U.P Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P Charan Singh v. State of U.P. Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another Razia v. State of U.P. Prem And Others v. State...
NOMINAL INDEX
Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another
Govind v. State of U.P
Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P
Charan Singh v. State of U.P.
Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals
Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another
Razia v. State of U.P.
Prem And Others v. State of U.P.
Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 172
Stressing that the depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence of rape, the High Court denied bail to a man who committed rape on an 8-year-old girl.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further observed that little girls are worshipped in our country, but the cases of pedophilia are increasing.
The Court also said that a victim/female small child who experiences sexual abuse once in her life, tend to be more vulnerable to abuse in adult life, and in such cases, the healing is slow and systematic.
Case title - Govind v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 173
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of committing oral sex with a 8 year old girl as it noted that mere long detention in jail does not entitle an accused for bail.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan further noted that the victim/prosecutrix was about 8 years at the time of incident, and therefore, the Court said, at the stage of bail, it cannot be presumed that she gave the statement about oral sex under the influence of her parents.
Case title - Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 174
The Uttar Pradesh Government last week opposed the recognition of same-sex marriage on the ground that such marriages are against Indian culture and Indic religions and shall be invalid according to Indian laws, which have been designed keeping in mind the concept/existence of a man and a woman.
The submission was made before the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav which was hearing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a mother seeking custody of her daughter (23 year old) alleging that she had been illegally detained by another woman, 22-year-old Sanjana (opposite party no. 4).
Case title - Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 175
The Allahabad High Court on Monday denied bail to a Nepali Citizen who has been accused of being in regular touch with 11 numbers pertaining to Pakistani nationals.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail on the ground that the matter pertains to national security and the applicant is not an Indian national and therefore, he doesn't deserve to be released on bail.
Bail Applicant-Mohd. Saleem Khan was arrested by UP Police on February 28, 2021, and from his possession, three fake aadhaar cards (having different dates of birth), a Passport of Nepal, and other documents were recovered. He was later on booked under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC
Case title - Charan Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1171 of 2006]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176
Observing that no cogent explanation was given to explain the chain of incriminating circumstances by the appellant-convict, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who killed his wife in the year 2004.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain specifically observed that nothing had come on record from the side of the convict-appellant that he resided elsewhere or worked for a gain elsewhere and was not present at the scene of the crime on the night of the incident.
Case title - Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 177
The High Court set aside the conviction of 3 murder accused in a 30 year old case as it found that the conviction recorded by the Trial court was based on untrustworthy last seen evidence.
The Court also opined that the accused had been seriously prejudiced on account of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer during the trial, and this omission had created a deep dent in the prosecution case.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Vires Of 'Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual' With ₹10K Cost
Case title - Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 178
The High Court dismissed a writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a declaration of the Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual as ultra-vires the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner (Shailesh Kumar Mishra) on account of the non-maintainability of the plea.
Case title - Razia v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 475 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 179
Reiterating the law laid down in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after the expiry of the period of iddat as long as she does not remarry.
The Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in May 2008, modifying the order of trial Court passed in Janury 2007.
Case title - Prem And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1826 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted 4 accused in connection with a 42-year-old Dacoity case as the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain suspected it to be a case of 'false implication' of the accused persons.
"...we have a strong suspicion, based on the facts of the case, the informant has taken the commission of dacoity in the village as an opportunity to falsely implicate persons with whom he had enmity i.e. the appellants along with other unknown dacoits," the bench remarked.
Case Title:Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 181
The High Court observed that the statutory compliance of a pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act") by a 'promoter' before the entertainment of an appeal in an Appellate Tribunal is mandatory.
A Single-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Agarwal, by an order dated 12.04.2022, rendered this observation while dismissing an appeal that sought to assail an order of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("the Appellate Tribunal") which had originally dismissed the appellant's appeal on grounds of non-payment of the mandatory deposit before entertainment of appeal as mandated under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act").
Case title - Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 182
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to take a decision for reorientation of the teacher-student ratio in the Schools being run by the Department Of Basic Education in Uttar Pradesh
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh perused the pleadings and noted that no particulars had been furnished by the petitioner, one Gaya Prasad.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Bar Council Of India Constitutes 5 Member Committee To Look Into The Issue Of Dress Code For Lawyers
The Bar Council of India has informed the Allahabad High Court that it has constituted a five-member committee to hold discussions and conduct deliberations with the bar and the judiciary on the issue of dress code for lawyers.
The BCI has made this submission responding to a notice issued to it by the HC on a plea moved before the Court seeking a ban on the existing dress code of black coats and robes prescribed for lawyers alleging that the same is against the climate conditions of India.
Case title - Rahul Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 399 of 2021]
In what appears to be the last opportunity, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to produce the 82-year-old man who went missing from TB Sapru Hospital in Prayagraj during COVID's second wave, around 11 months ago.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has also taken a serious view of this matter and has directed the respondents to produce the corpus on the next date fixed, failing which, the Court added thus:
"...this Court may consider calling for the personal presence of all the concerned respondents and may also consider to impose exemplary costs considering the facts and circumstances of the case."
Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others
In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar, one of the contesting respondents in the case, today argued Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient time, i.e., Satyug up till now.
Before the bench of Justice Prakash Padia, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar further argued that if the temple (of the lord vishveshwar) had been destroyed by any means, its religious character never changed, and therefore, Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 won't be applicable because the structure of old temple was built prior to the 15th Century.
Allahabad High Court Organises First Gender Awareness And Sensitization Workshop
The Internal Committee of the Allahabad High Court last week organized a one-day Gender Awareness and Sensitization Workshop in compliance with Section 19 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013.
The workshop was inaugurated by the Chairperson of the Internal Committee (IC), Justice Sunita Agarwal, and the participants included 25 Senior Officers (Judicial Officers) of the Registry of the High Court at Allahabad.
The Uttar Pradesh Government has canceled the engagement of Advocate Jyoti Sikka as the Additional Advocate General with immediate effect. The Secretary to the Government, Praful Kamal forwarded a letter to this effect to the office of the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh yesterday.
The state government has also discontinued the engagement of standing counsel Amit Sharma. Both the government lawyers were engaged in the year 2017. Incidentally, both the government advocates were recently reproved by the Allahabad High Court for their conduct.
Case Title - Inner Wheel Club D.O.D Thru. President Pooja Jain And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Dept. And Ors
The High Court emphasized the need to maintain and preserve the ecosystem and biodiversity at the Sandi Bird Sanctuary, situated in the Hardoi district of the state.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed this while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea moved by Inner Wheel Club Through its President Pooja Jain
Essentially, the petitioner had moved to the Court pointing out the poor upkeep of the Sanctuary. The petitioner has alleged that due to authorities' neglect, the lake, as well as the bird sanctuary, are becoming a cause of concern so far as preserving the biodiversity and ecology in the area are concerned.
Case title - Nishant Chandra and others v. Union of India and others
Referring to the practice of law students filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas in the High Court based on their internship projects and thereafter not pursuing the matters, the High Court frowned upon such students as it remarked that the Court can't be made a dumping ground for pushing all such internship reports.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal further opined that Universities - law colleges, that assign these kinds of projects to the law students, are equally responsible for such cases.