Judgments/Orders of the Week 1. UP Power Corporation EPF Scam: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Parveen Kumar Gupta Case title - Parveen Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P.Thru C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 37 The High Court granted bail to the former General Manager of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and prime accused in...
Judgments/Orders of the Week
1. UP Power Corporation EPF Scam: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Parveen Kumar Gupta
The High Court granted bail to the former General Manager of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and prime accused in the Corporation's EPF Scam, Parveen Kumar Gupta.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has granted him bail on the condition of his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The High Court has observed that conducting or not conducting preliminary enquiry is the domain of Investigating Officer and on which basis, F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed thus while hearing a 482 CrPC plea filed by the Husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the victim, Seema seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR that had been lodged against them under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.
The High Court upheld the life sentence of a convict in a murder case that dates back to the year 2002 while stressing that there is no prohibition that the police personnel should not record dying declaration and that such a dying declaration is also admissible in evidence.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Budhwar further noted there might be certain defects in the investigation so conducted by the Investigating Officer, but the same cannot ipso facto be a ground to hold that the appellants are not guilty, as there exists ocular and documentary evidence, which proves that the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased.
4. Criminal Appeal Can't Be Dismissed On The Ground Of 'Not Pressed': Allahabad High Court
The High Court observed that a Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of not being pressed.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed against an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 101 of JJ Act dismissing an appeal filed by the accused/revisionist on the ground of not pressed.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man named, Mohammad Kaif who has been accused of trying to incite religious sentiments by raising anti-national slogans during Anti-CAA protests.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh considered the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail along with the submissions of the counsel for the parties, nature of the accusation, the role of the applicant, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, and opined that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.
The High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered over the circulation of a video on Facebook, wherein an anonymous Maulana was seen as saying that 'Hazrat Adam is the father of the Hindus'.
Having perused the contents of the FIR, the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ajai Tyagi found that prima facie a cognizable offence was disclosed in the same and in view of the law settled, the Court added, prayer for its quashing cannot be allowed.
The High Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni', who is the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case. The Court noted that there might be a possibility that the driver (of Thar) tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place.
Mishra is facing a case of Murder for an incident that took place on October 3, 2021, when four protesting farmers were killed after they were mowed down by an SUV, in which Mishra was allegedly sitting.
The High Court set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to the year 1980, after concluding that the testimony of the sole eye witness in the case isn't reliable.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain, in its analysis of the facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced in the case found that the testimony of the PW1 (who accompanied the deceased just before the incident), who is the only eyewitness of the incident and thus, it didn't find it safe to rely on his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Swale Raza v. State of U.P
The High Court slammed the Station House Officer of a police station in District Budaun as he 'passed an order' to hand over the custody of an adult woman (named Shivani Gupta) to another adult man (named Swale Raza).
The Bench of Justice Jahangir Jamshed Munir also sought a personal affidavit from SSP, Badaun in two days as the Court called it unpalatable as to how the custody of an adult could be given to another adult, and that too, by a Police Officer.
Case title - Rashida And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
The High Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit in the criminal writ petition filed seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in an alleged custodial violence case.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma ordered thus after hearing a criminal writ plea filed by one Rashida, Her Husband Mohd. Harun and their daughters, Shama Chauhan and Sonam Jahan.
Case title - Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
The High Court observed that in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, the Court has to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material against them.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan also remarked that Mere naming of distant relations in the First Information Report (FIR) is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
Case title - Canara Bank/Assets Recovery Mgmt.Branch,Lko.Thru.Chief Manager Ajeet Kumar Srivastava v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow And 2 Others and connected petition
In a strongly worded order, the High Court lashed out at Central Government for its failure to make appointments to the vacant posts of Presiding Officer/Chairman of Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh even remarked that if the Government is unable to appoint competent persons as Presiding Officers/Chairmen in D.R.Ts./D.R.A.Ts., then it is better that enactment is scrapped and the tribunals are abolished.
Case title - Kiranpal @ Kinnu v. State of U.P.
The High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr to take appropriate action against the responsible officers who failed to serve the POCSO Accused bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC as per the directions issued by this Court in Junaid case.
It may be noted that in Junaid's case, the High Court had, inter alia, issued directions and a definite timeline for the disposal of bail applications under the POCSO Act, 2012.
The Court had also issued a direction to the police and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to inform the aggrieved/victim party on getting the notice of the bail application of the accused, inform them about their rights, provide legal services, etc.
Read more about the Junaid case here: Allahabad High Court Issues Directions & Timeline For Disposal Of Bail Applications Under POCSO Act, 2012
Case title - Akash Vashishtha v. State of UP
The High Court issued notices to the Election Commission of India, State of Uttar Pradesh, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the Central Pollution Control Board, among others over a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in connection with election plastic waste disposal during assembly elections.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has also issued a notice to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, and the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on this plea, which primarily seeks an interim stay on the manufacture and use of PVC and other chlorinated plastic-based advertising products such as Banners/Hoardings/ Flexes/Signage's/ Flags or likes for the purpose of its use in UP Assembly Polls 2022.
7. Allahabad High Court Directs Second Autopsy Of The Body Of Kasganj Custodial Death Victim Altaf
Case title - Chand Miyan v. State Of UP And 5 Others
The High Court directed a second autopsy of the body of the Kasganj Custodial death Victim, Altaf by a team of doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma was hearing the plea moved by Chand Miyan (father of the Altaf) seeking a CBI probe and second autopsy in the matter.
8. Allahabad High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To A Civil Judge For His Failure To Sign Order Sheet
Case title - Daya Agarwal v. The Court Of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lucknow And Another
The High Court issued a show cause notice to the Presiding Officer of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, asking him as to why the disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for not signing the order sheet.
The Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra directed the Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, Mr. Piyush Bharti to submit his explanation by the next date of listing i.e. March 28, 2022.
Case title - Ajay v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home
The High Court adjourned the hearing in a bail application as the counsel appearing for the petitioner refused to switch his camera on due to the fact that he wasn't in uniform.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal called it 'objectionable' and listed the matter for further hearing on March 15, 2022.
Essentially, the Counsel for the lawyer was connected through video conferencing and his camera is switched off. When he was directed to turn on his camera, he said that since he is not in the uniform and as such he cannot switch it on.