NOMINAL INDEX 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....
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.
Other updates from the High Court
Case title - Manoj Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16901 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the transfer of a 26-year-old UP Police constable Manoj Kumar who, in August 2022, protested against the alleged sub-standard food being served at the mess at Firozabad Police Line.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia stayed his transfer and sought a counter affidavit from the UP Government in 4 weeks. The court has now posted the matter for further hearing on February 28, 2022.
The Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings of a 2014 criminal case against the Chief Minister of Delhi and National Convener of Aam Admi Party (AAP), Arvind Kejriwal, pending before the MP/MLA Court in the state's Sultanpur District.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh ordered thus while hearing a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by Kejriwal challenging the order of the MP/MLA Court framing charges against him and posted the matter for further hearing on January 13, 2023.
The Allahabad High Court restrained the State Election Commission from issuing Urban Local Bodies' election notification till December 20. The order was made after the UP Government sought a further 3 days' time to file its reply to the query raised by the Allahabad High Court on Monday.
Essentially, on Monday, the High Court had asked the UP Government whether, in the process of reserving the seats for the purpose of Urban Local Bodies' election, the State Government completed the 'Triple Test' formalities as mandated by the Supreme Court.
The Uttar Pradesh Government has asked its department and agencies to engage only panel lawyers to argue cases in the High Court and further directed that in case private lawyers/special counsels are to be engaged in unavoidable circumstances, the facts/circumstances for the same should be intimated to the Advocate General's office.
Special secretary of the state government's justice department, Indrajeet Singh issued the order which states thus:
"In general, only one of the Law Officers appointed by the State should be engaged for appearing in the Hon'ble High Court and if it is inevitable to engage a special advocate (private advocate) in any case, then all the facts/circumstances of the case be forwarded to the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh. Only after this the file should be referred to the Justice Department for engaging a special advocate (private advocate)."