Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: December 2022 [Citations 511 - 543]
NOMINAL INDEX Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511 Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512 Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513 Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514 Ganesh v. State of...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Ganesh v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Vakeel Quraishi and 2 Ors.v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Hari Singh v. Shyam Bihari And 20 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Pushpendra Chauhan vs. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Vijay Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko. And ors along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Anil vs. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 522
X (victim) vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 523
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
Badri Shrestha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Basoo Yadav vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 534
U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority versus M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Kamla Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Sidhique Kappan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Faisal Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 538
XYZ vs. State of UP and 2 others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Saleem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Vaibhav Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Gulam Rashul vs. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Case title - Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8292 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a Constitutional Court entrusts an investigation in a case to CBI and the role of a public servant emerges as an accused for committing such an offence, no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be required for prosecuting such a public servant.
In other words, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that if the CBI has probed a matter upon a direction of the High Court or Supreme Court, and has filed a charge sheet against a government/public servant, then there is no requirement to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the competent authority for prosecuting such a government/public servant (serving or retired).
Case title - Manjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5796 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Manjeet Yadav, who is an accused in the 2013 Deputy Superintendent Of Police Zia-ul Haq Murder Case in view of his long incarceration of 9 years in jail.
Essentially, Manjeet Yadav had moved to the High Court with the instant bail plea on the ground that he has been in jail for more than nine years from the date of his arrest, the prosecution has concluded the evidence of its witnesses and now, the defence witnesses are being examined.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 648 of 2021]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court has held that the rejection of registration solely on the ground of delay in moving the revocation application is not sustainable in law when the entire tax is deposited.
The single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that once the department has accepted the return and there are no outstanding dues, the department should not obstruct the business of an assessee.
Levana Suites Fire | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Owners, Manager Of Hotel
Case title - Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted bail to a manager and two owners/partners of the Hotel Levana Suites (in Lucknow), where a major fire incident took place on September 5 resulting in the killing of 4 people and leaving 7 others injured.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh granted bail to owners Rahul Agrawal and Rohit Agrawal and manager Sagar Srivastava by observing thus:
"There may have been some infraction of regulatory requirements to run a hotel, but that would not amount that the accused-applicants have been negligent or they failed to take due care of their guests or they had knowledge of fire accident, which would result in death/injuries to the guests."
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing Wife As She Couldn't Prepare Food For Him
Case title - Ganesh v. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3162 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court granted to a man who has been accused of killing his wife as she could not prepare food due to the non-availability of vegetables.
Taking into account the dying declaration of the deceased, the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav noted that there was no premeditation for the applicant--husband to commit the offence as alleged against him.
"Perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased clearly shows that on the date of the alleged incident i.e. on 25.07.2013 at noon, when the deceased could not prepare the food due to the non-availability of vegetables for which her husband lost his temper and started beating and poured kerosene oil upon her and burned. It means that there was no premeditation for the applicant to commit such offence as alleged against him.
Murder Convict Can't Be Sentenced To Punishment Less Than Life Imprisonment: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vakeel Quraishi and 2 Ors.v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4041 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 516
There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted of murder offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court observed in a judgment delivered recently.
The Court observed thus while relying upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nandu @ Nandua 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732, wherein it was ruled that any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC.
Case title - Hari Singh v. Shyam Bihari And 20 Others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 810 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 517
"...the citizens from all walks of life have developed an outlook, where they think that a Judge is an easy target and that they can malign the Judges' reputation, alleging anything against them, particularly, the Presiding Officers in subordinate Courts," the Allahabad High Court recently remarked as it dismissed a transfer application and imposed Rs. 10K Costs on the petitioner.
Dismissing the plea, the bench of Justice J. J. Munir further remarked that the impact of such transfer applications, if entertained and the Presiding Officer asked to put in his comments, may demoralize the subordinate judiciary.
Case Title - Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 828 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court rapped the Amethi District Administration for their act of filing successive FIRs and demolishing the buildings owned by the Members of the District Bar Association without serving them any notice.
"Lodging of the FIRs, undertaking demolitions and even making the complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. against the President and formal office bearers and members of the petitioner-Bar Association…in a span of less than a week shows not only undue haste on the part of the District Administration but such actions also demonstrate lack of good faith on the part of the authorities of District Administration," the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava remarked.
Case title - Pushpendra Chauhan vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27563 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Taking into account the definition of 'rape' as per Section 375 of IPC, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the offence of rape is made out even if there was consent on the part of the victim, however, willingness was absent.
It may be noted that sexual intercourse under 7 circumstances falling under Section 375 Of IPC can constitute rape and such circumstances are independent of each other, meaning thereby, even if one of the seven conditions is met, an act may amount to rape.
Case title - Vijay Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko. And ors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to certain candidates who participated in the process of recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools but their candidature was canceled by UP Goverment due to discrepancies/errors mentioned in the application form relating to "Shiksha Mitra".
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that in case a candidate furnishes some information in his/her online application form by way of which, he/she put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled.
Case title - Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7859 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 521
"In a democracy based on adult franchise, the political activist and other public-spirited persons would have right of protest against the Administration by staging Dharana etc. against perceived discrimination/atrocities, inaction, omission or commission of the State Authorities," the Allahabad High Court observed as it quashed a 2013 criminal case filed against the sitting minister in Uttar Pradesh Government and BJP MLA, Dinesh Pratap Singh.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also took into account the fact that the state government has already granted permission to withdraw from prosecution and pursuant to which application under Section 321 CrPC has already been filed before the court where the case is pending since 2013.
Case title – Anil vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 703 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court observed that no reverse burden could be placed on the accused with the aid of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act [Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge] when the prosecution has not discharged its burden first.
With this, the bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi set aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to one Anil for allegedly killing his wife in June 2013.
Case title - X (victim) vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13325 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for deliberately and wilfully trying to ensure that the accused in a minor's rape case, are absolved of charges during the investigation.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian further noted that the cop adorned upon himself the role of an investigating officer, as well, as of a Court, and threw the Indian Evidence Act to the wind by arriving at a conclusion that the statement of the minor victim was perse, false.
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.
Lucknow Gomti River Front 'Scam'| Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Project Advisor
Case title - Badri Shrestha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another [Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.2102 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to the former advisor of Lucknow's Gomti Riverfront project who has been accused of committing huge corruption and large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the project.
Looking at the magnitude of the corruption involved in the case, the allegations against the accused-applicant, Badri Shrestha and evidence available against him, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh denied him anticipatory bail.
Case title - Basoo Yadav vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29605 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the reports with regard to the non-cognizable cases could not be made the basis for rejecting an application for the issuance of a passport if they had not been investigated into.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ajit Singh observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed by one Basoo Yadav, who had moved the Court seeking the issuance of a passport in his favor.
Case Title: U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority versus M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while dealing with an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking to restrain the invocation or encashment of the Bank Guarantee, the Court is only required to consider the terms of the Bank Guarantee Agreement and not the conditions contained in the main Contract between the parties, in terms of which the guarantee was furnished.
The bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla held that when an application for interim measures is filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking interference in the invocation of an unconditional Bank Guarantee, the Court is not required to interpret the contract and/or form a prima facie opinion as to whether the beneficiary of the Bank Guarantee has wrongfully invoked the Bank Guarantee. The Court ruled that such an exercise can only be done in a substantive proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case title - Kamla Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court took serious note of the conduct of certain 'unruly' advocates who raised slogans, outside the courtroom, to assault police officers, including lady officers, who were summoned by the Court in connection with a criminal writ petition.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian directed the Registrar General to conduct a discreet inquiry and submit a report in this regard identifying the unruly advocates. The case would be registered as a separate case, the Court further ordered.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13642 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case initiated against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted in its order that except for the allegations that ₹5K was transferred in the bank account of the co-accused (Atikur Rahman), there is no other transaction, either in the bank account of Kappan or in the Co-accused bank account.
"Even if it is believed that part of the proceeds of the crime was transferred to the bank account of the co-accused, Atikur Rahman that itself may not be sufficient to prove that the accused-applicant has dealt with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,36,14,291/-which had been allegedly received by K.A. Rauf Sherif," the bench added (emphasis supplied).
Case title - Faisal Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23696 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Recently, the Allahabad Hih Court has explained as to when the written statements of the witnesses could be considered to be statements duly recorded under Section 161 of CrPC [examination of witnesses by police].
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that if the written statement has been submitted by the witness himself to the Investigating Officer and the IO assures its genuineness and same, if reduced in writing, shall be a statement duly recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
"...there is no illegality in taking a written statement of a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., when it was reduced in recording in case of diary in presence of witnesses, as well as I.O., has made questions also which are also reduced in writing along with answers. The I.O. has taken sufficient precautions to ensure it to be a written statement of witnesses only," the Court remarked.
Case title - XYZ vs. State of UP and 2 others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6105 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 539
The Allahabad High Court last week quashed an order of a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejecting an application moved by a rape victim under section 156 (3) CrPC seeking a police probe in the allegations of rape made by her against the accused.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also remanded the matter back to the CJM's court with a direction to re-consider and re-visit the entire matter once again and decide the same in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676.
Case title - Saleem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15195 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that he shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in the account of Gau Seva Aayog within a period of one month from his release.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order while adjudicating upon the bail plea moved by one Saleem who was booked under Sections 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Case title - Vaibhav Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 541
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Election Commission to immediately notify the Urban Local Body Polls without OBC reservation. The court ordered thus as it held that the state government doesn't fulfill the Triple Test Formality as laid down by the Apex Court.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Lavania also ordered that Polls notification shall include the reservation for women in terms of the constitutional provisions.
"While notifying the elections the seats and offices of Chairpersons, except those to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, shall be notified as for general/open category. The notification to be issued for elections shall include the reservation for women in terms of the constitutional provisions," the Court directed.
Case title - Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33329 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not for the court, in a bail matter, to form any opinion on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses as it would amount to evaluating the evidence.
With this, the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the second bail plea moved by a murder accused (Krishna Kant) on the new ground that since 2 of the witnesses of last seen evidence have not supported the prosecution's case and have been declared hostile, therefore, he should be granted bail.
Case title - Gulam Rashul vs. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 7291 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Explaining the scope of Section 201 IPC, the Allahabad High Court observed that removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of the murder to another place does not come within its ambit as the removal does not cause the disappearance of evidence of the commission of the murder.
Stressing that to constitute an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. there must be a disappearance of some evidence of the commission of offence, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian observed thus:
"Section 201 looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. Section 201 will apply only when the false information touching the offence with intent to screen the offender is given to those interested in bringing the offender to justice."