- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Allahabad High Court Half Yearly...
Allahabad High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
7 Aug 2023 9:10 AM IST
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] Benefit Of Doubt Regarding Correctness Of Answer Key Goes In Favour Of Exam Authority & Not Candidate: Allahabad High Court Case title - Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 8892 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Noting that there is always a presumption about the correctness of...
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
Case title - Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 8892 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Noting that there is always a presumption about the correctness of an exam answer key, the Allahabad High Court observed that in the event of doubt over the correctness of an answer key, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
With this, the bench of Justice J. J. Munir dismissed a writ plea of one Gyan Prakash Singh challenging his non-selection as an Assistant Professor (Chemistry) to aided nongovernment colleges, engaged in imparting higher education, in the competitive exam conducted by the UP Higher Education Service Commission (UPHESC).
Case title - Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42581 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The Allahabad High Court directed the National Medical Commission (erstwhile Medical Council of India) to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of two doctors after prima facie finding that they prepared a false medical report in collusion with the injured person, so as to cause wrongful harm to the accused persons.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the Doctors (Lalit Kaushik and Imran) working with V-Bros Hospitals, Saharanpur after noting that the report prepared by them regarding the injury sustained by the injured person was inherently improbable.
Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The Allahabad High Court took exception to a judgment delivered by Sessions Court, Kanpur Dehat in which the rape victim's name was mentioned and said that the Judge should be careful while dealing with such matters in the future.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal said it is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding.
“Before parting with the case it is necessary to mention that despite Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts of not disclosing the name of the victim of offence of rape, the trial court has specifically mentioned the name of the victim/prosecutrix while recording her evidence in court and at various places in the impugned judgment. Despite various reminders by the Apex Court about it, the trial court appears to have been ignorant about it,” the Court remarked in its order.
Case title - Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7478 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a police constable who was convicted in 2018 by a trial Court for allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor girl, after finding that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also observed that there were major improvements in the testimony of the victim and hence, the trial court was not justified in returning the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant.
Case title - Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 787 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband not just till the completion of the 'Iddat' period, but for the rest of her life until she remarries.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while setting aside an order of the family court wherein a divorced Muslim woman was found entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat.
Case title - Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15459 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court took an exception to the 'fashion' of making irresponsible insinuations about the judiciary or its officers and observed that this unholy practice has to be whole-heartedly discouraged and deplored by every responsible person in society.
The Court also said that we are presently living in a democracy in its ugliest form, where nobody has got any regard for any institution.
Case title - Melvin Saldanha And Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 604 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court set aside a 'non speaking' order of the trial court dismissing the discharge plea moved by the Principal and PT Teacher of a Lucknow-based School in a case registered against them under Section 305 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th Student by giving him corporal punishment.
In its January 6 order, the bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the trial court, while dismissing the discharge plea, had not examined the facts of the case coupled with the requirement of offences under Section 107 (Abetment of a thing), 305 (Abetment of suicide of child or insane person) IPC and Section 227 (Discharge) CrPC.
Case title - Pintu Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37170 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of raping a physically challenged woman on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, refusing to marry her.
“Such criminal tendencies growing in the society must be nipped in the bud to convey a strong message to the culprits in the society,” the bench of Justice Saroj Yadav observed as it called the alleged offence, a 'serious' one.
Case title - Devesh Verma vs. Christ Church College Throu Principal Hazratganj Lko.And Ors [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court observed that the employees of a private educational institution do not have the right to invoke the writ powers of the High Court in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while denying relief to the petitioner, one Devesh Verma, who was removed from the post of Lecturer in Christ Church College, Lucknow in July 1992 after he misbehaved with the college principal.
Case title - Vaibhav Kumar Pandey And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 9 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which prayed for a declaration that a rape accused may seek 'Default Bail', in case a chargesheet is not filed against him within two months of lodging of FIR.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar dismissed the plea for being 'misconceived' as it noted that such a prayer need not be addressed in a public interest litigation.
Case title - Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26037 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate's order, rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CrPC or converting it into a complaint, is not an interlocutory order and the aggrieved party can prefer revision against it under Section 397 CrPC.
The court also added that such an order of the magistrate cannot be challenged in a plea moved under Section 482 CrPC as an alternative remedy of filing a revision under section 397 CrPC is available to the aggrieved party.
Case title - Kailash vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to two men for killing a man with a country-made pistol in the year 2005.
The court said that the act of the accused carrying a firearm weapon at the place of occurrence was itself indicative of their intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also noted that the nature of the injury and the body part, where the injuries were sustained, indicated that the Accused-Appellant fired on the deceased with the intention of causing injury as is likely to cause death or the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Case title – Paras Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2306 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning losses of crops of farmers due to the movement of wild boar and blue bull by noting that the Government is seized of the matter.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar noted that the Government is seized of the matter and is taking steps to minimize the losses, and hence, it was not necessary to monitor the matter at this stage.
Case title - Mokhtar Ansari vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11290 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari in connection with a case under UP Gangster Act registered in 2020 while considering the allegations and his rich criminal horoscope.
Observing that if Ansari is not a gangster, then in this country no one can be said to be a gangster, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that he and his gang members accumulated enormous wealth by striking fear and terror in the minds and hearts of the people and his freedom would be in peril of the law-abiding citizens of this Court.
Case Title: Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The High Court of Allahabad Bench comprising of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit, while adjudicating a petition filed in Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., has held that approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, does not ipso facto absolve the surety/guarantor of the Corporate Debtor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract of guarantee.
Case title - Asif Khaliq vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 16263 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on a man who filed a writ petition making false averments and suppressing material facts.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji directed the petitioner (Asif Khaliq) to deposit the cost with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
Case title - Saumitra Anand and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1891 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court said that the issue regarding the rational use of paper in all judicial filings in all Courts/judicial forums in the State of UP is engaging the attention of the Court on the administrative size.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir said so while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, inter alia, urging for use of double-printed A4 paper in courts. The Court has, however, welcomed the petitioners to submit suggestions in this regard.
Case title - Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29318 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court has observed that at the stage of bail, it is only to be seen whether provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been prima facie complied with or not and it cannot be precisely ascertained whether compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been substantially made or not, as the same can only be ascertained during the trial.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while dealing with the plea of an NDPS Accused seeking bail on the ground that at the time of search and recovery, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
Case title - Adarsh Bhushan vs. State of U.P [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 576 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court directed the private schools to adjust/pay back the excess money (15% of the total fee) that was charged from students during the COVID Pandemic period (2020-21 session).
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir ordered thus while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved parents from all over the State seeking regulation of fees in all government and private schools in Uttar Pradesh.
Case title - Arvind Kejriwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No.42 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Sultanpur Court's order rejecting Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's discharge plea filed in connection with a 2014 case registered against him allegedly saying "those who believe in 'Khuda' won't be pardoned by 'Khuda' if they vote for BJP".
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan said that it appeared that Kejriwal is threatening the voters in the name of Khuda knowing fully well that if he uses the term 'Khuda', some set of voters belonging to different religions might have severely been influenced.
Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8536 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a person against whom a warrant has been issued and, is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrants and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code have been initiated against him, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while denying anticipatory bail to three persons (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and wife of the deceased) accused of abetting the suicide of a man.
Case title - Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12343 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of luring 90 Hindus to convert to Christianity by putting them under undue influence, coercion by playing fraud, and promise of easy money, etc.
Stressing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma denied the relief as it did not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
Case title - Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused to quash proceedings against the accused persons in an attempt to murder case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the injured victims as it called the offence 'against the society'.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the crime was against the society and not against the injured sons of the informant alone and, therefore, the informant and his sons have no authority to pardon the accused persons.
"The acts allegedly committed by the petitioners (accused persons) involve firing gun shots in broad day light hitting two persons in their chests and such offence is a very serious offence and the material on record, namely, the medico-legal examination report of the injured persons and the statements recorded during investigation, fully support the FIR allegations," the Court remarked as it dismissed a Section 482 CrPC plea moved by the accused.
Case title - Nafisa And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-14344/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash FIR against and stay the arrest of the 5 women members of the alleged 'Nafisa Gang' which is allegedly involved in filing false rape/SC-ST Act cases against innocent persons for the purpose of extracting money.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar observed that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, which requires a detailed investigation to be carried out by the Authorities.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Mukhtar Ansari S/O Subhan Ullah Ansari [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 903 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the March 2022 order of a Trial Court in UP's Ghazipur directing the SSP of Banda District Jail to grant 'Superior Class' in prison to 'known gangster' and former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari.
Calling Ansari a dreaded criminal and a bahubali, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Ghazipur as not only without jurisdiction but also unsustainable on merits. Consequently, the order of the Ghazipur was set aside.
Case title - Manjeet Alias Pintoo vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59616 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court directed the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to ensure compliance of its 2022 order in the case of 'Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 435' wherein it issued several positive directions for the State regarding providing access to legal aid to undertrials.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was prompted to pass this order while hearing the bail plea of a kidnapping accused who remained in jail as he did not have access to legal aid as he belong to the economically poor strata of society.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To A Pastor Accused Of Luring 90 Hindus To Convert To Christianity
Case title - Vijay Masih (Pastor) vs. State Of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57506 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a pastor who has been accused of luring 90 Hindus to convert to Christianity by putting them under undue influence, coercion by playing fraud, and promise of easy money, etc.
Taking note of the records of the case, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that it appeared that on the basis of general allegations, he was made accused in the present matter along with 35 named persons, and out of 35 persons 6 persons have already been released on bail and thus, he was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Case title - Sidhique Kappan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 161 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court has directed the special NIA Court in Lucknow, trying the UAPA Case against Kerala Based journalist Siddique Kappan, to decide his discharge plea AFRESH after giving an opportunity of hearing to his counsel. With this, the Court also quashed the order of the NIA court's framing charges against him.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order on Monday after observing that the Trial Court had, while proceeding to frame charges, neither accepted, nor rejected Kappan's discharge plea, and prima facie no opportunity for a hearing was granted to his counsel.
Case title - Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23675 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings pending for 18 years against a man accused of committing electricity theft by terming the inordinate delay in the trial as oppressive and unwarranted.
Holding that the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused-Madan Mohan Saxena had been violated in the case, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain quashed the chargesheet and entire case proceedings under Section 39/49B of the Electricity Act pending against him.
Case title - Nizamuddin Khan vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1461 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Nizamuddin Khan, the State President of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) in the UAPA case over his alleged connection with the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) and involvement in anti-national activities.
Khan, who has been booked under sections 295A, 109, 120B, 201 I.P.C., and section 13 of UAPA, was arrested on September 27, 2022, from Aligarh allegedly with objectionable material and unconstitutional literature.
Case title - Digvijay Chaube vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10053 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail (till submission of the police report, if any) to a man accused of inciting the public to demolish the Gyanvapi Mosque.
The bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma passed this order earlier this month on the anticipatory bail plea of accused Digvijay Chaube, who has been booked under sections 153A, 295A 505(2) I.P.C.
“In the event of arrest of the applicant- Digvijay Chaube, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned…,” the Court ordered.
Case title - Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 216 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a right that may be denied only in exceptional circumstances or in such circumstances where the order sheet reveals that the other side/ party is habitual in seeking adjournments for one reason or another.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while setting aside an order of the trial court wherein the opportunity of cross-examination for the applicant (accused in a Gangster Act Case) of a prosecution witness was closed despite the fact that the applicant had moved an adjournment application on the ground that his counsel was busy in some other court.
Case title - Mohd. Aslam vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a person convicted in the year 2004 for allegedly killing 4 persons of a family by mixing poison in their meat as it did not find credible evidence against him.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav acquitted one Mohd. Aslam as it noted that though it was painful that four persons of the family were done to death by poisoning, however, the real culprit of the crime could not be brought to book.
Cae title - Mohd. Ahmad Khan @ Ahmad Khan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36651 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court has quashed entire criminal proceedings against Rajyasabha MP and Congress leader pertaining to the 2019 Model Code of Conduct Violation case registered against him.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh quashed the entire proceedings of the case against Pratapgarhi and others, the cognizance order dated 02.07.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 10.10.2022 passed by Court of ACJM-04, District Moradabad.
Case title - Sajid @ Sajid Pardhan vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50360 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 35
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of uploading some objectionable material on his Facebook account with regard to the Chief Minister of the state, Yogi Adityanath.
The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order as it noted that the offences under which the accused has been challaned are having maximum punishment of three years and the that he is in jail since September 2022 i.e. for about more than three months.
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35405 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 36
In a partial relief for former Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister and Senior Samajwadi Party Leader Azam Khan, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Firozabad Court taking cognizance of offence under Section 153-A IPC in the 2007 'provocative' and 'communal' speech case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is a serious offence, but the statute has created a bar for taking cognizance for such an offence unless there is a prior sanction of the competent authority i.e. State Government, which was not obtained in the present case.
Case title - Krishna Kumar (As Per Fir And The Charge Sheet Krishna Kumar Naayi ) And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 677 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing the cognizance order of the Court of ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli summoning a man accused of committing offences under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 16 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Case Title – Lokendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 39558 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the defect of non-filing an affidavit in support of an election petition at the stage of filing of an election petition cannot be cured by way of filing the subsequent affidavit.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while confirming an order of an election tribunal that rejected an election petition filed under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the ground of non-filing of the affidavit.
Case Title – Dr.Priyanka Garg vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical And Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 23384 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the State Medical Department initiating an inquiry against an associate professor working in a state medical college after keeping her resignation file pending for 7 months.
Taking into account the plight of the professor of medicine, who resigned as she was facing difficulty in handling her child while continuing her job with the State Government, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary stressed that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible.
Case title - Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 137 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court has observed that for the purposes of constituting an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done, and not the injuries.
The bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed thus while upholding an order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the plea of discharge filed by a man accused of committing offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
"Section 308 IPC consists of two parts. The first is related to no-injury cases while the second part deals with where the hurt is caused. So what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done and not the injuries," the Court observed.
Case title - Nandini Sachan vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38967 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court observed that the freedom of expression does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility on social media nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language.
"...it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that social media is a global platform for the exchange of thoughts, opinions, and ideas. The internet and social media have become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language," the bench of Justice Shehar Kumar Yadav said.
Allahabad High Court Entertains And Allows A Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed On Fresh Grounds
Case title - Rajnish Chaurasia Alias Rajnesh Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 31 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court entertained and allowed a second anticipatory bail plea filed on fresh grounds.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar granted anticipatory bail [till the filing of police report u/s 173(2) CrPC] to one Rajnish Chaurasia who has been accused of inter alia causing hurt to the first informant in May 2022.
With this, the bench rejected the contention raised by AGA that the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant was not maintainable on the ground that the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493, ruled that a second and successive anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
Case title - Javed Mohammad @ Pump vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53834 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the Welfare Party Of India Leader Javed Mohammad who is the prime accused in the June 2022 Prayagraj Violence case. He has been accused of leading the mob which allegedly damaged public property and set police vehicles on fire.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that from the perusal of the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation, it appears that general allegations were made against all the accused persons including the applicant.
Case title - Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Application U/S 482 No.25838 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Hisab-Kitab Remark case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that considering the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting by Ansari, at this stage it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.
"The scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and it should be exercised in exceptional cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose any offence. Whether the offence under Section 153-A IPC gets attracted or not, would depend on the quality of evidence led by the prosecution during the trial. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings or the charge sheet," the Court's order reads.
Case Title: Lalita Gupta vs. High Court Of Judicature Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And Others [WRIT - A No. - 672 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to an unsuccessful candidate who appeared for an Interview of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2020 and challenged the final select list after her name did not appear in the list.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that she took a calculated chance of being successful in the interview, but when the result was not favorable to her, she challenged the select list and thus, her writ plea was not maintainable.
Man Accused Of Selling Sugarcane Juice Adulterated With Beef Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title – Fuzail vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 397 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Fuzail who has been accused of selling sugarcane juice which was adulterated with beef.
The bench of Justice Deepak Verma granted him bail keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577.
Accused Fuzail, booked under Sections 323, 504, 295-A I.P.C. and Section 3, 5 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, had moved the High Court seeking bail on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive.
Case title - Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu vs. Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7522 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet in each and every case where an FIR has been lodged alleging the commission of offence under the SC/ST Act 1989.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori further clarified that Section 4(2)(e) of the 1989 Act and Rule 7(2) of the SC-ST Act Rules 1995 only enjoins upon the IO to file such a charge sheet where, based on evidence collected during the investigation, the offence is made out.
Case Title - Swami Chinmiyanand Saraswati Pupil vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11900 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Union minister Chinmayanand Saraswati in connection with the Shahjahanpur Rape Case 2011 after the state did not oppose his bail plea.
In fact, the Counsel for the complainant filed a counter affidavit stating that the complainant has no objection, whatsoever, if Chinmayanand is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Case title - Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 50
While dealing with the writ plea of a man accused of burning the copies of Ramcharitmanas, the Allahabad High Court directed the police authorities to follow the mandate of Section 41A CrPC and also the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari however denied to quash the FIR filed against Accused Mahendra Pratap Singh who has been booked under Sections 120-B, 142, 143, 153-A, 295, 295-A, 298, 504, 505(2), 506 I.P.C.
Case title - Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of a Session Court awarding life imprisonment to 2 persons after finding them guilty of committing gang rape against a 7-year-old girl in the year 2010.
Refusing to reduce the sentence awarded to the convicts, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma observed thus:
“It is not a case of rape by juvenile, a single accused with a mature lady or with a girl who is on the verge of attaining the age of puberty or majority. The victim was not knowing even the nature of the offence. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, age of the victim, age of the accused persons and that it is a case of gang rape with a little girl, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each.”
Case title - Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others vs. State of U.P. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2704 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court allowed an application of the Public Prosecutor's application for 'Withdrawal From Prosecution' as provided under Section 321 CrPC against the lone Bahujan Samaj Party MLA in Uttar Pradesh, Umashankar Singh in connection with a cheating case.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the concerned Public Prosecutor had not only considered the facts and circumstances of the case but also considered the evidence in a fair detailed manner.
Case title - Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 811 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Family Court rejecting the application of one Bitola (revisionist/wife) seeking maintenance from her Husband on the ground that she is staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that the Family Court conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of CrPC and disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself.
Case title - State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan @ Raziwan [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 114 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who misled the court to obtain a bail order.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order against Advocate Parmanand Gupta after finding that he obtained a favorable order for his client concealing the fact that another bail plea had earlier been rejected by another bench of the court.
Case title - Chantara vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 55
"Since 75th Independence Day Celebrations, Government has marked Azadi-ka-Amrit Mahotsav terming it to be 'Amrit Kaal' with prospective vision in the welfare of citizens of the country, however, Police Administration feels more comfortable to remain with colonial structure," the Allahabad High Court observed recently while taking exception to a counter affidavit filed by the state in an anticipatory bail plea stating that the applicant is of criminal intent.
Also Read - Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Consider Allowing Vehicles To Pass Without Paying Toll During Busy Hours
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan also took to task the deponent of the counter affidavit (Deputy Superintendent of Police/ Circle Officer, Sahawar, District Kasganj) by observing that the officer believed himself to be empowered with sanction to author a certificate of the propensity of a person without any cogent material.
"A bare reading of the averments in counter affidavit whereby the applicant is said to be of criminal intent appears to be on the basis of skewed information. No such officer is allowed to enjoy impunity on the pretext of discharging official functioning nor can be set free to form an audacious remark without any basis," the bench observed.
Case title - Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1789 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Competent Authority can not withhold the recommendation of a person indefinitely on the ground of adopting the sealed cover procedure during the pendency of the criminal case.
The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed thus while granting relief to one Ranbir Singh (presently serving as a Tehsildar with the State Government and seeking promotion to the post of a Deputy Collector) by directing the Competent Authority to consider his claim of opening the sealed cover within a period of eight weeks from the date.
Case title - Suneeta Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39234 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court observed that a woman can not commit the offence of rape but if she facilitates the act of rape with a group of people then she may be prosecuted for 'Gang Rape' under Section 376D Of IPC in view of the amended provisions.
Perusing the provisions of Section 375 and 376 IPC (as amended by Act 13 of 2013 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), the bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the argument that a woman cannot be prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence of gang rape.
Case title - Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assistant Director [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.7719 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of the alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razaq Peediyakkal in the PMLA Case wherein he has been accused of collecting and laundering funds over Rs. 20 crores for the PFI.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan rejected the bail plea today.
It may be noted that the ED raided Peediyakkal's residence as well as the Munnar Villa Vista Project (MVVP) site in December 2021 wherein it found several discrepancies in the receipt of suspicious foreign funds from abroad and also in cash expenses incurred and recorded in the books of accounts.
Case Title: Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 35965 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court Bench, comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, while adjudicating a petition filed in Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank of Baroda & Ors., directed the Bank to re-consider its decision of declaring the Borrowers (Petitioners) as wilful defaulters, as a One Time Settlement (OTS) was subsequently entered between the Bank and Borrowers and full compromise amount has been towards the Petitioner Company's accounts.
The Bench also granted liberty to the Borrowers to avail legal remedy if the Bank's decision on their representation is not favourable to them.
Case title - Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11542 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court observed that a child in conflict with the law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can not file an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
"In case, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed to hold the field in the matters of juvenile, the aim and object of the Act shall be defeated. The interpretation of law cannot be devised in a way, so as to put a hurdle in the broader and solemn aim which is sought to be achieved by this enactment," the Court said.
Case title - Salman Khurshid vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38523 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Congress leader Salman Khurshid for allegedly making an indecent remark against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath.
During the electioneering for Lok Sabha Election 2019, while referring to Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Congress leader Khurshid had allegedly said: “Rishte me ham unke Baap Lagte hai".
Case title - Kushwaha Mahasabha and another vs. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1969 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Observing that nowadays litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court, the Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on a Government Teacher who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea by suppressing material facts.
The bench of the then Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir further observed that in the post-Independence period, materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
Case title - Santosh Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And 4 Ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 221 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The Allahabad High Court allowed the legal heirs of Santosh Gupta (now dead), who was the complainant in the Prabhat Gupta Murder case of 2000 in which the Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' is the prime accused, to participate, as 'Victims', in the State's appeal moved before the High Court challenging Teni's acquittal.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on an application moved before it bringing on record the surviving legal heirs of the original revisionist (Santosh Gupta), who, being the complainant, had instituted a revision plea before the HC in 2005 against the judgment of acquittal.
Taxing Authorities Can't Stop Assessee From Claiming Statutory Right: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1027 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court has held that the taxing authorities cannot, in the garb of technicality, stop any assessee from claiming his statutory right, as provided under the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that, due to the mistake of the department or a technical glitch in the software, when an appeal of an assessee is not reflected on the portal, the department cannot deny the appeal filed offline on technical grounds.
Case title - Prem Narayan Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 666 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 65
The Allahabad High Court allowed an application of the Public Prosecutor for 'Withdrawal From Prosecution' (as provided under Section 321 CrPC) against UP BJP MLA Prem Narayan Pandey in connection with a case registered against him under the UP Excise Act.
With this, the Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Gonda (in November 2020) rejecting the plea of the public prosecutor.
Case title - Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 302 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court DENIED anticipatory bail to Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi in connection with a rape case registered against him in the year 2021 by the wife of his former driver.
Noting that non-bailable warrants have been issued against Tyagi by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow last month, the bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan did not find any good ground to provide him protection from arrest.
Case title - Anees vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23624 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court observed that at the stage of adjudicating a bail application, it cannot delve into the quality or quantity of evidence and it can only consider whether the delinquent appears to have committed the crime and whether he is entitled to bail or not.
With this, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to a man who has been accused of killing his wife pursuant to setting her on fire. It was argued by the defence counsel that many prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution.
Case title - Jose Prakash George And 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1814 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against 37 persons accusing them of coerced the first informant into religious conversion (Hinduism to Christianity) by inducements.
While doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the counsel for the accused persons that the instant FIR (filed by an aggrieved person as per the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act) be quashed since there is already an FIR pending related to the same case.
Case title - Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others vs. State Of UP and Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 308 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Allahabad High Court transferred the trial against three J&K students accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan's victory in a T20 Cricket World Cup match against India in 2021 from the court of CJM, Agra to the court of CJM, Saharanpur.
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order on a transfer plea moved by the students after their counsel submitted before the Court that the District Bar Association, Agra has made a resolution that they will not defend the case of applicants.
Case title - Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4227 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by one Parvez Parwaz challenging a Trial Court's order rejecting his protest plea against closure report in the alleged 2007 hate speech case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Petitioner (Parwaz) is a busy body who has been fighting the case since 2007 and that his resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation.
"The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the bench remarked.
Case Title: M/s Radha Fragrance versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that under the garb of the protection given under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017, dispensing the requirement of E-Way bill for movement of goods valuing below Rs.50,000, a dealer who is a manufacturer, cannot be allowed to send his goods to different consignees by undervaluing the same, and without the Taxing Authorities proceeding to take action against him under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Prayagraj Violence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Javed Mohammad In Another Case
Case title - Javed Mohammad @ Pump @ Javed Ahmad vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55315 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the Welfare Party Of India Leader Javed Mohammad in another case pertaining to the June 2022 Prayagraj Violence incident. He has been accused of leading the mob which allegedly damaged public property and set police vehicles on fire.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot granted him bail as it noted that the counsels for the state could not satisfactorily refute the arguments made by the counsels for Javed Mohammad.
Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 709 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki in connection with the FIR lodged against him for using a forged Aadhar Card and using the same for his air travel.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh termed it as 'strange' that a Member of the Legislative Assembly forged the national identity card i.e. Aadhar Card and traveled on the basis of the same.
With this, the Court also rejected the argument of the Counsel appearing for Solanki that the case essentially pertains to a violation of the Aadhar Act 2016 and that for filing a complaint under the act, authorization from the competent authority is mandatory, and since in the present case, no such sanction/permission was granted by the competent authority, therefore, no proceedings could be maintained against him.
Case title - Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Observing that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to two men accused of committing gang rape against a married woman while stressing that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has to be considered at the time of adjudicating bail plea.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further added that much water has flown down the Ganges since the Apex Court's opined in a 1983 case (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat) that no girl would foist a false case of sexual assault against any person to avoid being maligned in the non-permissive Indian society.
Case title - Aditya Raj Verma vs. State Of U.P. . And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3077 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Granting bail to a man accused of raping his married live-in partner, the Allahabad High Court observed that it is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking of live-in relationship.
Opining that Indian Society, at large, does not recognize such relationships as acceptable, the Court added that a woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge a first information report against her live-in partner, as it happened in the present case.
Case title - Govind Prakash Pandey vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. India Represented By Its Assistant Director Lko.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), observing that he was not arrested by the investigating agency under Section 19 of the PMLA and therefore rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA can't be made applicable.
The regular bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA are not satisfied.
Case title - Shakila Khatun vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3573 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even for the period after iddat and for her whole life unless she is disqualified for the reasons such as marriage with someone else.
While observing thus, the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh set aside an order of the Family Court whereby the plea filed by one Shakila Khatun, a divorcee, under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed by holding that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C
Case Title: Rajeev Bansal Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 78
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) cannot be used to conduct the reassessment proceedings beyond March 30, 2021. The time limit outlined in Section 149(1)(b) (as amended beginning April 1, 2021) cannot be extended by the department after March 30, 2020.
The division bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit has observed that the relaxation law under TOLA would not govern the time frame prescribed under the first proviso to Section 149 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2021.
Case title - Umakant Yadav vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22865 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former MP Umakant Yadav in connection with a 2019 case involving the alleged grabbing and damaging of the Gandhi Ashram in the Azamgarh district.
Taking note of his long criminal antecedents of 80 cases, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that he is a Bahubali, gangster and a dreaded criminal of Eastern Uttar Pradesh and is known for having bahubali, mafia, and gangster culture.
Case title - Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18536 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 80
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that it is impermissible to dismiss bail applications for non-prosecution on account of the absence of counsel as it is violative of the fundamental rights of the prisoners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court added that in such cases, an amicus curiae should be appointed to represent the applicant/prisoner and the matter be heard on merits.
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to the Vice Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal and Institute's Director Vinod Bihari Lal in connection with a mass religious conversion case.
Noting that they are an influential person and their intent behind the charitable works appears to be
dubious, affecting the interest of a marginal section of society, the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan said that they can't claim parity with other persons who have been released on anticipatory bail.
The bench noted that material evidence regarding mass conversion has been collected by the investigating agency that affects society at large and hence, it is a case concerning a
serious offence and cannot be taken lightly.
Case title - Ali @ Ali Ahmad @ Mohd Ali Ahmad vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42431 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 82
While denying bail to Ali Ahmad, son of 'Bahubali', 'Mafia Don' and former MP & MLA, Atique Ahmad in an attempt to murder case, the Allahabad High Court said that Ali is himself a Mafia Don in making, whose role has also figured in the Umesh Pal Murder case.
Umesh Pal, who was the star witness in the murder case of Raju Pal, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was shot dead on 24 February by the assailants outside his residence in Uttar Pradesh's Prayagraj
Case title - Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 1743 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Stressing the importance of cows in Hinduism and the need to stop the practice of killing them, the Allahabad High Court hoped that the Central Government would take an appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a 'protected national animal'.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed also observed that since India is a secular country where we must have respect for all religions and in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence, and therefore, it should be protected and venerated.
Case Title - The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And 15 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Prescribed Authority under The Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, to refer the dispute, pertaining to deduction of salaries of the Indian Express employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, to the Labour Court.
Various employers including the newspapers had deducted the salaries of employees or workmen during the pandemic. In the case filed by certain employees of the Indian Express, it has been stated that they provided services even during the period in question - April 01, 2020, to February 28, 2021, but the daily still deducted a certain percentage of their monthly salary.
Case title - Kalika Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33349 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while considering the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, the Court cannot examine any defence of the accused which has yet to be placed before the subordinate Court.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus while refusing to entertain the plea filed by one Kalika Pratap Singh seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly abetting the suicide of a woman.
Case title - Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 5 of 2019]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 86
While cancelling bail granted to an accused (Farhan) in the 2005 murder of then BSP legislator Raju Pal in Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court observed that in the area of the Police Station Dhomanganj/Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj the writ of the State Government does not run, rather, the writ of dreaded criminal, Ateeq Ahmad runs.
The court observed thus as it noted that both Raju Pal and the star witness of the murder case, Umesh Pal (killed last month) were eliminated by assailants acting allegedly at the behest of Former MP Atique Ahmed.
Case Title - Rajesh Chandra @ Rakesh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against the officials of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the delay in awarding compensation to people of nine villages despite acquiring their land for a highway project.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Manjive Shukla passed this order on a plea moved by two such landholders whose pieces of land were acquired in 2016, however, no compensation for the same was awarded to them even when the highway has already been constructed.
Case title - U.P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha.U.P.Officer Shri N.P.M.Vidy.Raebareli Thru. President Ankur Chaudhari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 178 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the state is not bound to provide free textbooks and uniforms to all the students studying in unaided junior high schools being managed by private management.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi however added that the state and local authorities do have a duty to provide free textbooks and uniforms each year only to such students who are admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009.
Case title - Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8338 of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the subordinate court issuing a summons to an accused for facing the trial of offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as it noted that the alleged act of abusing the victim took place inside the car, and not in public view.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh relied upon the Uttarakhand High Court's ruling in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttrakhand and another 2020 AIR (SC) 5584, wherein it was held that if the alleged incident of abuse took place inside the car, which is not in public view, thus, no offence under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) can be said to be made out.
Case Title- X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori of Allahabad High Court granted bail under section 12 of JJ Act (Juvenile Justice Act,2015) to a person, who was at the time of incident juvenile and accused of heinous offence. The court observed that the Appellate Court and JJ Board (Juvenile Justice Board) have failed to properly appreciate the mandatory provision of section 12 of JJ Act.
The bail application of the accused person charged under Sections 302,201,34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) was rejected by the JJ Board on the ground of gravity of the offence and the reason that there appears a reasonable ground for believing that the guardian of the juvenile has no effective control over the accused person and there is a possibility of re-occurrence of the offence after his release.
Case title - Ramu Mallah vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10996 of 2020]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Terming 'Mukhtar Ansari Gang' as the most dreaded criminal gang of India, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to an alleged Ansari gang member in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus while denying bail to a murder accused (one Ramu Mallah), who is an alleged member of the Mukhtar Ansari Gang.
Before the Court, Ramu Mallah's bail plea was opposed by the government while arguing that he is a member of the Mukhtar Ansari gang and that an FIR has been registered against Ramu Mallah under serious sections including murder, Arms Act.
Case title - Purushottam Chaudhary vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. The Superintendent Of Police Cbi/Acb Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1974 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court explained as to when a Proclamation under Sections 82, 83 CrPC be issued against a person to compel him to appear before the court be issued. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan decoded the procedure as laid down in the CrPC for the issuance of a proclamation, summons, and arrest warrants
Untangling the intricate procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the issuance of proclamation, the bench set aside a Non Bailable warrant and issuance of process under Section 82 of the CrPC against one Purushottam Chaudhary pertaining to a corruption case.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Former UP MLA Kamlesh Pathak In Gangster Act Case
Case Title - Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21738 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to former Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly member Kamlesh Pathak in the Gangster Act Case registered against him.
The bench of Justice Krishna Pahal did not find reasonable grounds for believing that Pathak is not guilty of such offence mentioned in the Gang Chart and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
The Court also took into account the gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents of Pathak to deny him the benefit of bail.
Lucknow Terror Conspiracy Case 2021: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Two Alleged Terrorists
Case title - Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to two alleged terrorists who were arrested last year in connection with a conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow. Earlier, the NIA court had dismissed their bail plea.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masood and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on bail pleas moved by accused Mohd. Mustaqeem and Mohammad Shakeel in view of the gravity of their 'unblemished' past antecedent and the gravity of the offences for which the trial is framed.
Case title - Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Bench of Allahabad High Court upheld the CBI inquiry report which found that the death of Dy CMO Dr. Y.S Sachin inside the Lucknow jail in June 2011 was suicidal and not homicidal.
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also quashed the summoning order of the magistrate against 7 retired/serving government officers to face the trial in connection with the murder of Dr. Y.S. Sachan and for causing the disappearance of evidence.
Printed Proforma Not Acceptable: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cognizance Order By Magistrate
Case- Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Justice Shamim Ahmed of Allahabad High Court has quashed the cognizance/summon order passed by a Civil Judge finding the order was passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, without application of judicial mind.
The application was filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of summons order and the entire proceeding of criminal case filed under Sections 376, 313 of IPC.
Case title - Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2674 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Granting bail to the 'Hathras Conspiracy' case accused Activist Atikur Rehman, the Allahabad High Court noted that the state could not show any financial gain received by him barring a sum of Rs. 5K, which was received in his bank account.
UAPA Activist Rehman, who was arrested in October 2020 along with journalist Siddique Kappan and two others, on his way to Hathras to meet the family members of a gang rape and murder victim, has been in jail since October 2020.
Case title - Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10173 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (named Sujeet Sharma) accused of making a video abusing the Chief Minister of the state, Yogi Adityanath, and sharing the same on WhatsApp.
The order was passed by the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot after the counsel for the accused made a submission that the accused holds constitutional dignitaries in the highest regard and that he did not have any intention of insulting high constitutional dignitaries.
Case title - In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court expressed its displeasure over the ongoing strike by the Uttar Pradesh electricity department employees despite the court's December 2022 order that the power supply should not be disrupted due to the strike by the employees.
Issuing contempt proceedings against the Employees' Association and its office bearers, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that even if there is a substance in the demand raised by the workers, yet, the entire State cannot be put to severe constraints by jeopardizing overwhelming public interest.
Case title - Saroj Kumari vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2211 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court observed that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 allowing for the grant of benefits to a woman would be applicable even after the birth of the child.
The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also opined that a woman can avail of maternity leave even after the birth of the child and such benefit can even be extended in a case of legal adoption of a child or less than three months.
Case title - Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9093 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a 23-year-old criminal case pending before the Varanasi Court against Congress' Rajyasabha MP Randeep Singh Surjewala as it noted that he has a remedy to move a discharge plea before the Trial Court.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta also directed that in case the Congress MP files a discharge plea before the local court within a period of two weeks, the same be considered and decided expeditiously within six weeks.
Case title - Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2590 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court suspended a 1-year jail term awarded to Uttar Pradesh cabinet minister Nand Gopal Gupta 'Nandi' by an MP/MLA court in Allahabad in January this year in connection with a 9-year-old assault case.
The Court also issued a direction for his release on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to deposition of fine.
Case title - Isha Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 36 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court canceled bail granted by a local court to a district court advocate who has been accused of sending obnoxious messages to a lady judge thereby causing harassment. The Court underscored that the Policy of Zero Tolerance in such matters has become imperative.
Dealing with the plea moved by the lady judge herself seeking cancellation of his bail, the bench of Justice Siddharth observed that the sessions judge ought to have considered the fact that such conduct of the accused will have a deleterious effect on the functioning of the judicial system at the grass root of level.
Case title - Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8514 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court observed that the prosecution in heinous offences such as rape and molestation of minors, which are punishable under the POCSO Act can't be quashed based on the compromise between the victim and the accused.
The Court also opined that the endeavour of the Court in a matter involving such offence is to determine the truth of the allegations and that the purpose is not to persecute the accused nor is it to let him off, because his relations with the complainant have taken a happier turn.
Case title - Khalid Azeem @ Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4003 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure the safety and proper security of Khalid Azim alias Ashraf, the brother of former Lok Sabha MP Atique Ahmed, during his jail transfer for the purpose of interrogation/remand proceedings in connection with the Umesh Pal Murder case.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that under Article 21, it is the duty of the State to protect the right and liberty of each citizen.
Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3794 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to issue directions orders to the Chief Medical Officers of the state regarding the preparation of postmortem reports or injury reports in typed format, which is legible.
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh issued this direction while granting bail to one Vishwanath, who has been accused of assaulting a victim, which resulted in his death. Pursuant to which, he was booked under Sections 323,504,506,304 IPC.
Case title - Shrey Singh vs. Union Of India And 9 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 13 of 2021]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court directed the Bar Council Of India to take against the persons hosting websites which offer online law course without the approval of BCI.
The bench of Chief Justice (Designate) Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh also asked the BCI to make appropriate recommendations to the Union of India to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to shut down such fraudulent websites.
Case title - Mahendra Pal And Ors. vs. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Edu.Andors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court directed the UP Government to prepare a revised select list of 69,000 Assistant Teachers selected through the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019 rectifying the irregularities committed in fixing the quota for their appointment.
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the rules were not followed in fixing reservations in the recruitment process and therefore, the authorities were directed to review the select list released on January 1, 2020.
Case title - Deepak vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2077 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against a Bhim Army leader who has been accused of making hate speech against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath and Bageshwar Baba, Dhirendra Shastri.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha (now serving as the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court) and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also declined to stay the arrest of the petitioner Deepak as it noted that prima facie, a case was made out against him.
Case Title: Agra Development Authority v. Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd. FAO No. 1033 of 2021
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause cover all the dispute arising out of the contract within its ambit then the scope of the arbitrator cannot be limited to decide only a particular dispute.
The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta held that all the disputes that have arisen before the appointment of the arbitrator can be referred to him for adjudication as the claim for damages which has been made prior to invocation of arbitration, becomes a dispute within the meaning of the provision of 1996 Act and the arbitrator's jurisdiction cannot be confined to a particular dispute.
Case title - Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2613 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned the Trial Court against putting onerous surety conditions in bail matters which have no connection with the socio-economic status of the prisoner as it noted that the same would negate the order granting bail, and undermine the fundamental right of liberty of the prisoner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Stressing that the Constitution of India does not put a price tag on liberty, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot asserted that the purpose of sureties is dissuasive in intent, but unrealistic surety demands are punitive in effect.
Case title - Mohammad Tariq Qashmi vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 605 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Mohammad Tariq Qashmi who was arrested in december 2007 on the allegation of possessing 1.25 Kg of RDX and three detonators. Qashmi is also an accused in 2007 serial blasts case that targeted courts in Lucknow, Banaras and Faizabad districts of the state.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav ordered his release on bail as it took note of the fact that the aspect of recovery of explosive substance requires consideration and that he has already served out the sentence for about 16 years.
Case title - M/S Radhika Constructions through its Proprietor Mr. Rakesh Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Deptt. Of Geology And Mines Lko. And another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order of the District Magistrate canceling a mining lease as it observed that the inspection report, upon which the entire case against the petitioner stood, was not supplied to the lessee, which constituted a violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court also noted that the inspection report in the case was prepared in a cryptic manner which merely recorded that the petitioner made excavation and extracted minor minerals from the areas outside the mining area, however, no clinching materials were collected against the petitioner.
“It is nowhere mentioned when and where the inspection was carried out, who were present during the inspection and most importantly whether the inspection was carried out at the location allotted to the petitioner is also doubtful as the plot is identifiable by G.P.S. Coordinates and there is no mention that G.P.S. Coordinates were used for identification of the plot. These are the essential facts which go to the root of the matter,” the bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed.
Case title - Jugadi Alias Nijamuddin vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sect. Lko And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 182 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man (named Jugadi @ Nizamuddin) booked under the UP Cow Slaughter Act as it noted that the case against the accused was a glaring example of misuse of penal law and that the state did not conduct a fair probe in the matter.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that neither the prohibited animal nor its flesh had been recovered from the possession of any accused person or from the spot and only a rope and some amount of cow dung had been collected by the Investigating Officer.
Case title - Mohd. Moeed vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Case Citation:2023 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist who was arrested in 2021 in connection with a conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow. Earlier, the special NIA court had dismissed his bail plea.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masood and Justice Saroj Yadav passed this order on the bail plea moved by the accused Mohd. Moeed.
Case title - Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui Vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home [CRLA/2734/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Islamic scholar Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui who was arrested in September 2021 by the Anti-Terrorist Squad of Uttar Pradesh Police on the charges of running a mass religious conversion racket in the State and converting the religion of over 1000 people across the state.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav passed this order on the bail plea moved by Siddiqui
Case title - Asif vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10602 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 118
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against one Asif accused of making objectionable remarks against lord Shiva on Facebook employing objectionable language.
“Offences of the kind that have a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities, have to be put down with a heavy hand. These offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community,” the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed.
Case title - Vikash Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Urban Development Urban Development U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 2713 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to upload on its website the report prepared by the dedicated Uttar Pradesh Backward Classes Commission to study the representation of Other Backward Class (OBCs) in urban local bodies.
It may be noted that the commission was set up in January this year tasked with the primary responsibility to collect empirical data on the political backwardness of the community and to look into the issue of reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in urban local body elections.
Case title - Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2941 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court observed the quashing of a Rape case or cases POCSO Act on the basis of the compromise entered between the accused and the victim is legally impermissible.
The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while it refused to quash a 9 year old rape case filed by the victim against the accused on the ground that the matter had been compromised between the parties.
Case title - XXX And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thr.Its Sec. Home U.P. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9901 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is society's dark face that Indian families still feel shy to get their son or daughter married to someone from outside their caste.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed thus while dealing with a joint plea filed by a woman (victim) and her husband (accused) seeking to quash the chargesheet filed against the accused under sections 363, 366 IPC, and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.
Case title – In Re vs. Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 15895 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court framed contempt charges against office bearers of the Kanpur Bar Associations and Lawyers' Association Kanpur Nagar for continuing their strike despite the HC's order (to refrain from boycotting district courts) and for also using abusive unparliamentary language and outrageous behavior against the Judiciary.
It may be noted that the lawyers of the Kanpur district are on continuous strike since March 16 inter alia to press their demand for the transfer of the district judge Kanpur Nagar.
A full bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra, Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi passed this order as it observed this:
“(the lawyers in contempt) have wilfully and deliberately committed the contempt of the order dated 6.4.2023 of this Court, by restraining the lawyers from performing the judicial work in the District Court at Kanpur Nagar, affixing a handwritten notice dated 6.4.2023 reiterating the resolution dated 25.3.2023 for an indefinite strike, and threatening the lawyers with adverse consequences in case any one of them attends the court proceedings”
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Culture, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 210 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the State spends some money out of the taxes/revenue collected by it from the citizens for providing some conveniences or facilities to any religious denomination, the same will not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India.
For context, Article 27 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person can be compelled to pay any taxes which can be utilized for payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
Case title - Shakti Singh vs. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused who ran away leaving his injured partner in a dying condition in a road accident, on the condition that he will have to stand near AIIMS Delhi for 2 hours daily (for 15 days) holding a placard saying 'Wear Helmet and Drive and distribute 15 helmets during this duration.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also directed him to distribute 25 copies of the May 2015 notification of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways regarding the protection of Good Samaritans to the persons who enter AIIMS, Delhi without wearing a helmet.
Case title - Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 389(2) No. - 2 of 2023]
Case Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 125
"It is now the need of the hour to have purity in politics. Representatives of people should be man of clear antecedent," remarked Allahabad High Court on Thursday while dismissing a plea moved by Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan seeking a stay on conviction in a 15-year-old case that led to his disqualification as an MLA.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta observed that Khan was trying to seek a stay of his conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds even when it is a well-settled principle of law that a stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases.
Case title - Durvesh vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3215 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court recently called it a curse for a society that women are still subjected to occult (तांत्रिक) rituals to treat their infertility even before ascertaining that it might be a case of male infertility.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while denying bail to an accused who, along with his family members, has been accused of giving repeated burn injuries to her bhabhi (brother's wife) purportedly on the directions of an occultist so as to treat her infertility.
"The mindset of applicant and co-accused who still believe in occultism to be a cure of female infertility even before ascertaining that it might be a case of male infertility, is of persons living in stone age and not in 21st Century, where science as developed to such extent that even infertility (of male or of female) may be medically cured, therefore, there is absolutely no case of bail at this stage," the Court observed.
Case Title: S/S S.K. Trading Co Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2(Appeal)
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has directed the department to release the seized goods on the condition of payment of 200% of the tax payable on the goods valued at the same on the basis of the valuation as shown in the invoice.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has observed that the value of the goods in transit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 declared in an invoice, a bill of supply, or a delivery challan in respect of the consignment. Even Section 15(1) prescribes that the value of the supply of goods or services shall be the transaction value, which should include the amounts clarified under Section 15(2) and the benefits contained in Section 15(3).
Case title - Reevan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors [CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 1 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has observed that before entertaining a public interest litigation plea concerning corruption by a public servant, the Court needs to be satisfied first with the credentials of the person approaching the Court.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus while dismissing a PIL plea filed before it by a dismissed state government employee of seeking, among other things, action against a current employee of the state government (respondent no. 6) on account of his alleged corrupt activities.
Case title - Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10924 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Today, the Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside a 2019 order of the State Government by which a convict, who was granted a life imprisonment sentence in two criminal cases, was granted remission.
Observing that the convict (Man Singh) was not entitled to remission of the sentence as his case was covered by prohibition no. (x) of the State Government's remission policy, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Surendra Singh-I directed the convict to surrender within 30 days and to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
Case title - Urmila Devi Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2924 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Class III employee concerning a money claim as it noted that the plea had been moved 27 years after the alleged cause of action allegedly arose in her favour.
In a strongly worded order, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the petitioner had approached the Court with a stale and belated claim, which suffered from gross delay and laches.
"This Court finds that the claims of the petitioner are not only stale and belated but are also barred by principal of constructive res judicata inasmuch she had earlier approached this Court for certain claims but did not make any prayer for the claims which have been made in the present petition. Further, this Court cannot entertain a writ petition for money claim after 27 years from the alleged cause of action allegedly arose in her favour," the Court remarked.
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36921 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that violence in one form or the other is not a sine qua non for a group of persons to qualify as a 'gang' under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Perusing Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be achieved through the practice of violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise.
Case title - Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19835 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court held that if an injury has been caused in the nature of a hole in the eardrum and if the same does not cause a hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity, then such an injury doesn't amount to 'grievous hurt' as per Section 320 (thirdly) of IPC.
The Court further observed that for such an act of inflicting injury (causing a hole in the eardrum) to fall under the 'grievous hurt' category, it has to be shown by way of medical evidence that there was a permanent privation of the hearing of ear or hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity.
Case title - Pawan Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28748 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband can't be summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a case where his wife, as the sole proprietor of a Business, issues the cheque.
The bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, while allowing the petition filed by petitioner Pawan Garg seeking to quash the court's summoning order, said, "applicant cannot be summoned as accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and the summoning order in respect of the applicant is bad in law in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case."
Case title - Pappu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7975 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court directed the 'Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha', the apex body of the Arya Samaj, to introspect and issue guidelines to avoid solemnising marriages involving minors.
The Court also directed the 'Sabha' to counsel proposed couples so that they may not enter into any criminal act i.e solemnizing a marriage before reaching marriageable age.
Case title - Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11043 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court held that an order issuing a summons to an accused for an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be challenged by way of filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi held so while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 589 and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 wherein the Top Court had held that criminal proceedings arising out of SC/ST Act can be quashed invoking powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
Case Title - Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1399 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice and to insist on corroboration of her testimony amounts to an insult to womanhood.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra further observed that an accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of a rape victim, without any further corroboration, provided that the evidence of such a victim inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful.
Case title - Asif Ahmad Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5500 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 137
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of CrPC, can issue a summons to a person even on the basis of the statement under Section 164 CrPC, even though such a person is not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, however, clarified that before summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to a prima facie conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police, some other persons are involved in the offence.
Case title - Kamlesh Paswan And 6 Others vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2102 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to sitting BJP MP (from Bansgaon) Kamlesh Paswan and stayed the sentence of 1.5 years awarded to him by the Trial court in connection with a riots case registered in the year 2008 during the pendency of his revision plea before the HC.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Misra passed this order considering the fact that Paswan is an MP and the Judgment of the trial court will cast a stigma upon his political career.
"Considering the facts that revisionist-applicant-1 Kamlesh Paswan is a sitting M.P. and the judgments and orders impugned in present criminal revision, will cast a stigma upon his political career, as such they have serious consequences. The consequences are of unverifiable character. Considering the above as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 Volume II SCC 574, it is, hereby, provided that the sentence awarded to revisionist-applicant-1 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the revision," the Court said.
Case title - Indra Pal and another vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court altered the Kidnapping for Ransom (Section 364A IPC) conviction of two men who kidnapped an 11-year-old boy, to that of Kidnapping with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person (Section 365 IPC), on the ground that the alleged letter for ransom sent to father of the child was not proved by prosecution.
Taking into account the evidence on record, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava observed that the intention of the appellants/convicts for kidnapping the son of the informant was to keep him secretly and under wrongful confinement.
Lucknow PUBG-Murder Case| Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile Accused Of Killing Mother
Case title - Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 140
In the infamous Lucknow PUBG-Murder case, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the 16-year-old boy (at the time of the incident) who has been accused of killing his own mother using his father's licensed pistol.
Though initially it was claimed that the Boy killed his mother as she stopped him from playing PUBG, a mobile-based game, the subsequent news reports suggest that the Juvenile admitted that he killed his mother as he was irritated with the frequent visits of a property dealer to his house to meet his mother.
Case title - U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5967 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court directed a Court in Mathura to decide the suit pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah land dispute, pending before it, without being influenced by the observations made by the Mathura District Judge on the merits/contentious issues of the case in its 19 May 2022 order.
Significantly, this order of the Allahabad High Court has paved the way for the resumption of the hearing of the suit before the Mathura Court seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque), located adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity-Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman.
Case title - Rajeev Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Up And 3 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 699 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government's March 10 circular to provide financial aid (Rs. 1 Lakh to each district) for holding religious events during Navratri Puja and Ram Navami festivals that began on March 22.
“…the said Government Order has been found issued, to publicize different development works and developments of basic amenities by the Tourism Department of the State Govt. and other departments of the State Government, at various temples. No amount has been found payable to any priest or for any purpose associated with the activities at any temple,” the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh said.
Case title - Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail pleas
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 143
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that unless a minor victim denies explicitly the existence of physical relation, it can be presumed that the victim and accused, who lived as husband-wife or that they solemnised marriage, had established physical relation.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further held in those cases where the existence of a physical relationship between the minor victim and accused could be presumed, then a rape case could be made out as the fact of whether consent was given or not, is immaterial.
Case title - Udit Arya vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4560 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a proclaimed offender is not barred from filing an Anticipatory bail application under section 438 of CrPC.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further observed that neither Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding) nor Section 438 CrPC imposes any restriction in the filing of the anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender.
In this regard, the bench also referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 to note that the Top Court had said the anticipatory bail application of the proclaimed offender should not be entertained normally.
Case title - Afshan Ansari vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7925 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court directed the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to accord full security to Ex-MLA Mukhtar Ansari while shifting him from one jail to another and while producing him before any Court from jail and on the way or any other place.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also directed that no media person shall be permitted to interview him and that he would be accompanied by the police personnel during his ingress and egress from jail.
Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court acquitted two accused who were awarded a sentence of life imprisonment in a murder case as it found that the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused was not complete.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal concluded that the alleged eye witness of the incident did not support the prosecution story and even there was no documentary evidence which could establish that the alleged recovered ashes and burnt bones belonged to the deceased.
Case title - Laxmi Devi And 3 Otrs. vs. State Of U.P Thru Principal Sec.(Civil Sec.) Lko. Nd 5 Otrs. [CIVIL REVISION No. - 114 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 147
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey (using modern techniques) of the 'Shiva Linga' that has purportedly been found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises in Varanasi to ascertain its age.
The order was passed today by the bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by 4 women Hindu worshippers challenging the Varanasi Court's October 14 order wherein the court had rejected their plea for conducting a scientific probe of the 'Shiva Linga', to determine its age.
The Allahabad High Court has sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh Government on implementing informative steps in the state Universities to cure the aberrant/deviant behaviour of young students.
Emphasising that the key to maintaining the students' discipline is ensuring a balance between punitive measures and reformative actions, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to file the affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.10-Additional Chief Secretary, Technical Education, U.P. Lucknow in this regard.
The Allahabad High Court sought responses from the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) and the NOIDA within two weeks on a petition filed challenging the demolition notices served to the owners of the farmhouses allegedly built over the Yamuna active floodplain area in Sector-135 of Noida.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has also granted Status Quo with respect to the property of a farm land owner against any coercive action taken by the NOIDA AuthorityThe hearing of the petition will be held in the second week of July.
Disqualified MP Afzal Ansari has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging his conviction in the Gangster Act case wherein he has been sentenced to 4 years in prison by the Ghazipur MP/MLA Court. In a separate plea, he has also prayed for a stay on conviction during the pendency of the appeal.
It may be noted that the case under the Gangster Act against Ansari and his brother and former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari was registered after they were booked for their involvement in the kidnapping of Vishwa Hindu Parishad office-bearer Nandkishore Rungta in the year 1996 and also in the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Krishnanand Rai in the year 2005.
Case title - Prashant Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4587 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has held that if in a demand notice, other amounts are mentioned along with the cheque amount in a separate portion in detail, the said notice can not be faulted in a legal term of Section 138 (b) of the Act, 1881.
For context, as per Section 138 (b) of the 1881 Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, on the dishonour of the cheque, has to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
Case title - Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1165 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order in the case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same.
For context, in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Court, in 2020, issued guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. In that case, it was held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance.
Case title - Manas Vatsa vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8267 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has directed all the Judicial Officers seeking to arrears of rent (in the event the Judicial Officer was not provided Government accommodation) should raise their claims through their respective District Judges and not take recourse to judicial proceedings for the same
"...it is not in the interest of justice and principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive that Judicial Officers should take recourse to judicial proceedings in such matters for redressal of their grievance, in particular, arrears of rent," the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed.
Case title - Waseem Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 203 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), while ordering the release of the attached properties of one Wasim Khan under the UP-Gangster Act, observed that the court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing orders of the seizure (of the properties of the alleged gangster Wasim Khan) sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and upheld by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow.
Case title - Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1496 of 1995]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere use of a lethal weapon is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 307 and that it is not necessary to constitute the offence that the attack should result in an injury.
"An attempt is itself sufficient if there is requisite intention. An intention to murder can be gathered from circumstances other than the existence or nature of the injury," the bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I held.
With this, the bench upheld the conviction of accused-Kamal Singh in connection with a 32 year old attempt to murder case.
However, the Court reduced the sentence period awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in 1992, from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment without modifying the fine imposed on him.
Case Title - Azaj Ahamad vs. U.O.I. Ministry Of Affairs Thru. Secy.And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court allowed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to intervene in a case wherein the Court has raised the issues as to whether religious education can be imparted in Government funded Madrasas and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, in March this year, while dealing with a writ plea filed by Azaj Ahamad, working as a teacher in a Madarsa, asked the Central and State Governments to file their responses on the matter.
Case title - Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director And Others vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan And Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the availability of an alternative remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case, though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious and alternative remedy is provided by law.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla by taking into account the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70, Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh LL 2021 SC 222 and Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1, held thus:
"... an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depends on the facts of each case. It is also equally settled that the availability of alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar, it is rather a rule of self-imposed discipline/restriction and public policy, and in certain cases falling within the exception as carved out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), even in the wake of availability of alternative statutory remedy, this Court can decide to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India"
Case title - Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 55 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed against Samajwadi Party MLA Swami Prasad Maurya over his alleged statement made in the year 2014 that "Goddess Gauri or Lord Ganesha should not be worshipped during weddings".
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also quashed the order of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur passed in November 2014 summoning Maurya to face charges under Section 295A IPC.
Case title - Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10374 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to an advocate who has been accused of repeatedly making physical relationships with the victim, his client, against her wishes after threatening her with dire consequences.
While rejecting his bail plea, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was of the view that the accused is well acquainted with the victim and since during the trial, the statement of the victim has not been recorded to date, therefore, if he gets bail at this stage, he will definitely try to influence her.
Case Title - State of UP vs. Ajai Mishra @ Taini And 3 Ors along with a connected criminal revision plea
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 157
While upholding the acquittal of Union Minister of State for Home, Ajay Mishra Teni in a 23-year-old Prabhat Gupta Murder Case, the Allahabad High Court said that there was no perversity in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as the lower Court didn't miss the woods for the trees.
With this, finding the prosecution's theory to be unconvincing, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed UP Govt's appeal against the acquittal order passed by Trial Court in 2004.
"...in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and in any case, the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. Further, on the recording of the findings as aforesaid, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the chain of events which can be said to exclusively lead to the one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused persons," the Court added.
Case Title - Himanshu Kumar vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8063 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 158
In a relief to a candidate who was declared successful in the 2018 BSF Head Constable (Radio Operator) exam but was denied employment on account of a religious tattoo mark on his hand, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to consider his candidature if he removes the tattoo.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava directed the Centre that if the petitioner/candidate removes the tattoo in question, then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which he had applied.
Case title - Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3552 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that no person can apply for bail in parts and that an accused is required to seek bail for all the offences for which he is wanted.
“No person can be permitted to apply for bail in part, that too firstly getting bail by invoking powers u/s 437 CrPC and later on taking recourse to Section 438 CrPC in the other sections. He has to apply for bail in all the sections he is wanted either u/s 437 CrPC or 438 CrPC,” the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said.
The bench held thus while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea filed by two applicants under Sections 392 and 452 IPC.
Case title - Ravindra Pratap Yadav vs. Asha Devi And Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 405 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court dissolved the marriage between a couple on the ground of cruelty by observing that not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.
With this, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV allowed the appeal filed by the Husband challenging a family court's order dismissing his divorce petition under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
"Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact," the Court said as it quashed and set aside the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.
Siddique Kappan Co-Accused Atikur Rehman Granted Bail In PMLA Case By Allahabad High Court
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 161
The 'Hathras Conspiracy' case accused Atikur Rehman who was arrested in October 2020 along with journalist Siddique Kappan and two others on their way to Hathras to meet the family members of a gang rape and murder victim, was today granted by the Allahabad High Court in the Prevention of Money Laundering Activities (PMLA) case.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order today paving the way for Rehman's release after over 940 days of his incarceration. A detailed copy of the order is awaited. Earlier in March this year, he was granted bail in the Hathras Conspiracy case.
Case title - Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 471 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate has the power under Section 190 CrPC to issue summons against persons who have not been mentioned as an accused in the charge sheet or arraigned in the first information report.
The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 wherein it was held by the Top Court that if there are materials before the Magistrate showing the complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in the commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage, could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence.
Case title - Mujeem vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17220 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC) based on the compromise entered into between the victim and the accused as it observed that permitting the parties to compromise would be an abdication of the State's function to prosecute offences against the society.
Considering the medico-legal report and the fact that the gunshot injury was sustained on the neck, which is a vital part of the body, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed thus:
"A reading of the FIR and the medico-legal report does not spare a shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the complainant-opposite party with a countrymade pistol and the complainant received a gunshot wound to his neck. It is only by sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack...Now, here the evidence shows that the weapon used was a fire-arm and it brooks little doubt that a person who opens FIR at another does so with the intention to kill. He certainly does not do so with the intention to love or play a jest."
Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 88 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 164
The Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute.
With this the Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I allowed the transfer application moved by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others. In the operative part of its order, it observed thus:
"...looking to the fact that as many as 10 suits are stated to be pending before the civil court and also there 25 should be more suits that can be said to be pending and issue can be said to be seminal public importance affected the masses beyond tribe and beyond communities having not proceeded an inch further since their institution on merits for past two to three years, provides full justification for withdrawal of all the suits touching upon the issue involved in the suit from the civil court concerned to this Court under Section 24(1)(b) CPC"
Case title - Guddu Verma vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2207 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be attracted in a case unless the initial burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is prima facie discharged by the prosecution.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by one Guddu Verma who was convicted by the trial court in 2016 for (allegedly) killing his wife in April 1998.
Case title - Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2047 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate can drop proceedings against an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act if he offers a fair and acceptable amount, which, in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta wherein the top Court had observed that an accused in a case under Section 138 of NI Act can be discharged even without the consent of the complainant if the Court is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated.
“The Supreme Court did not say that the requirement of consent for compounding may just be done away with. Instead, widening the compensatory aspect of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Apex Court has carved out a window in the existing scheme of things saying that the case can be disposed of without obtaining direct consent of the complainant under certain circumstances. The circumstances included offering an amount fair and acceptable which in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant. That is under certain circumstances the court can proceed in the absence of direct consent. The court is empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC,” the Court said.
Case title - Rajesh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10336 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court observed that there has been an alarming and shocking increase in sexual offences committed against children.
Noting that all such sexual assaults are not reported and do not come to light, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added thus:
“…this is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of the rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls.”
Case title - Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to a man, and his lover, who killed his wife after setting her ablaze in 2011 merely because she was a strong protester of their illicit relationship.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that such persons are not entitled to any leniency as they are a black spot in society.
“This version of P.W.-3 that the accused-appellants, namely, Jaikishan @ Bablu and Anita used to have illicit relations, which the deceased used to object and due to which the accused-appellant Jaikishan used to beat and torture the deceased and ultimately, in the night of the incident, both the accused-appellants killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire, has been fully supported by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.-2 and the version as unfolded in the FIR, even though the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are hear say witnesses but they are consistent from the very beginning and till the recording of their statements before the trial court,” the Court concluded in its operative part of the Judgment.
Case Title: M/S Imagine Fashion Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v Presiding Officer Commercial Court and Anr. [ARTICLE 227 No. - 6736 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Commercial Court cannot reject an application filed where the judgement debtor resides for execution of an arbitral award, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
“This Court finds that the law in regard to moving the execution application has already been settled by Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) and provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 1996 is clear to the extent that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable for enforcement of the award and the award shall be treated as decree. Once the said provisions are there, filing of execution case by the petitioner at the place where respondent No.2 resides is within the territorial jurisdiction as provided under the Act and the order passed by Commercial Court refusing to entertain execution application is totally erroneous,” the bench, comprising of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed.
Case title - Md Sameer Rao vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 3671 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Stressing that the intimacy of human life and a person's name is undeniable, the Allahabad High Court said that the fundamental right to keep or change a name is vested in every citizen by virtue of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while allowing a writ petition filed by one Sameer Rao challenging the action of the UP Board of High School and Intermediate Education rejecting the application filed by the petitioner praying to get his name changed in the High School and Intermediate examination certificates.
Case title - Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others [CIVIL REVISION No. - 101 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed the revision plea moved by the Anjuman Intazamia Mosque Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) challenging a Varanasi Court order (of September 12, 2022) dismissing its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea that was filed last year objecting to the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit filed in Varanasi Court seeking worshipping rights inside the Gyanvapi Mosque compound.
In essence, the HC has rejected the mosque committee's challenge to the 5 Hindu women worshippers' suit pending before the Varanasi Court. Last year in December, the bench of Justice JJ Munir reserved its judgment after hearing counsels for both parties at length.
With this, the Court has upheld the September 12, 2022 order of the Varanasi Court holding the said suit to be maintainable.
Case title - Ibran @ Sheru vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18519 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act by observing that the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef products.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also said that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products as punishable under the Slaughter Act unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
Case title - Asharam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57301 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Refusing to grant bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court said it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added that in our country, a woman, a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than implicate somebody falsely. Hence, until she is a victim of a sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
Case title - Devendra Singh And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7901 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court disapproved the issuance of notice under Section 160 of CrPC to 5 accused in connection with an FIR registered against them in the year 2006, about 17 years back.
Calling it a mockery of the criminal jurisprudence, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Gajendra Kumar protected the 5 accused and also gave them the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Case title - Kundan Yadav vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23297 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere possession of live cow/bullock or merely transporting cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to bail to one Kundan Yadav who was arrested in March this year in connection with the alleged recovery of 6 cows from a vehicle. He was booked under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the U.P. Prevention Cow Slaughter Act, 1964 and Section 11 Prevention to Animal Cruelty Act, 1960.
Case Title - Dr. Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti vs. State Of U.P And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6090 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 176
The Allahabad High Court said that the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties and that it does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of language.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while refusing to quash a Chargesheet filed against one Dr Shiv Sidharth under Sections 295A IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2008 accusing him of posting an objectionable message on WhatsApp containing abusive remarks on Goddess Durga which hurt the sentiments of the Hindus.
Case Title - Mohammad Zaid vs. tate of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 177
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) recently held that a child in conflict with the law has an equal and efficacious right to seek his remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC like any other citizen but with the restrictions imposed in the said provision itself.
While answering a reference made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Samit Gopal further held thus:
- Section 1(4) of the Act, 2015 does not exclude the application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a child in conflict with the law after the F.I.R. is registered against him as there is no provision contrary in the Act 2015 to the Cr.P.C. to make it inapplicable.
- A juvenile or a child in conflict with law can be arrested and/or apprehended if such a need arises, but he cannot be left remedy-less till the time of his arrest and/or apprehension. He can explore the remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. if a need arises. The remedy of bail under Section 12 of the Act 2015 can be invoked by a juvenile or a child in conflict with law at the appropriate stage.
- An inquiry is required to be conducted by the concerned Board for declaring a person as a juvenile and then extending the benefit of the beneficial legislation to him.
- The required enquiry under Section 14 and preliminary assessment into heinous offence under Section 15 of the Act 2015 where required can be done while the child in conflict with law is on anticipatory bail.
Case title - Azaj Ahmad And Others vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights (Ncpcr) Thru. Its Chairperson And Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 354 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 178
The Allahabad High Court directed the Registry to register a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a separate case on the issue of government funding of religious education in institutions like madrasas and place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction or before the appropriate PIL Bench.
The following issue has been referred to the CJ/PIL Bench:
"Whether funding by State Exchequer of institutions imparting religious instructions is violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India?"
Case title - Parvez Parwaz vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 179 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2440 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 179
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to activist Parvez Parwaz in connection with a Gang rape case in which he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the year 2020 by a Gorakhpur court.
It may be noted that Parvez was the informant in the FIR filed against UP CM Yogi Adityanath for alleged Hate Speech. In the FIR, it had been alleged that in the year 2007, Yogi, the then Gorakhpur MP, had delivered hateful speeches seeking revenge for the death of the youth who was allegedly killed during a Muharram procession in January 2007
Case title - Chand Babu @ Vishal vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2025 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who has been accused of establishing sexual relations with the victim by making a false promise to marry her after concealing his real religion.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that it was a case wherein the accused trapped the victim by representing himself to be a person of different religion and made a physical relationship with her against her will.
“…the applicant has introduced himself as a person of a different religion to deceive the victim and made a promise of marriage to have a physical relationship with her, then it would be a case of a false promise of marriage,” the Court added.
Case title - Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 181 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1340 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 181
The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the bail plea of Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly gave a statement on a Youtube channel that it is desirable to kill Rizvi by uttering words - Katl Wajib Hai.
Case title - Aarfa Bano Thru. Mohd. Hasim vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 148 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 182
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Muslim father-in-law has no locus to file a habeas corpus plea seeking the presence/custody of his daughter-in-law.
With this, the bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed disposed of a Habeas plea filed by one Mohd. Hasim seeking custody of his daughter-in-law alleging that she is in illegal custody of her parents since 2021 and that they are not allowing her to go to her matrimonial house.
Case title - Rameshwar Lal Chauhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 183 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6920 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 183
The Allahabad High Court set aside a murder conviction on the ground that though the trial court relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased to convict the accused, the same was not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC seeking his explanation.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed that the accused could not explain a vital circumstance as he was never confronted with the incriminating material of the dying declaration, which formed the basis of the conviction.
Case title - Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6850 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 184
In an interim relief to Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala in the 23-year-old damage to public property case, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Trial Court in Varanasi to provide copies of all the legible documents including the charge sheet as per Section 207 CrPC to him within seven days.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also directed the trial court to adjourn the case for seven days and provide legible copies to the petitioner. The hearing was earlier scheduled to take place on Friday (June 9).
Case Title: Bata India Limited & Anr. vs U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & Anr.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the discretion given to Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) in respect of selection of forum for arbitration between the parties, is absolute and has overriding effect over any other law. In exercise of the said discretion, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including the prohibition contained in Section 80, will have no application, the court has ruled. Therefore, the court held that in the event the conciliation proceedings carried out by the Council under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act fail, the Council can itself proceed to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 186 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 572 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 186
The Allahabad High Court on Monday refused to transfer the probe into the daylight killing of 48-year-old alleged Gangster Sanjeev Maheshwari (alias Jeeva) inside the Lucknow Court premises on June 7, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Jaspreet Singh said that only six days have elapsed since the lodging of the FIR in the matter and the constitution of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and in such a short span of time, it is not possible to draw an inference that the probe will not proceed appropriately and in the right direction.
“In such a short span of time, it will not be possible for the Court to draw any inference in respect of the functioning of the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) and the investigation being conducted by it. Besides, having regard to the higher rank of the members of the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) which they occupy, we, at this juncture, also do not have any reason to believe that the investigation shall not proceed in the right perspective,” the Court said as it expressed a hope that the SIT shall be conducted in the appropriate direction with the expedition.
Case title - Pankaj Khare vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Custom And Cgst, Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 148 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Commissioner, GST to issue clear direction to the GST Commissionerate in Lucknow that no notices regarding payment of service tax /GST are issued to the lawyers rendering legal service falling in the negative list so far as service tax is concerned.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Jyotsna Sharma directed thus while hearing a writ plea filed by an Advocate Pankaj Khare challenging a May 2023 order passed by Dy. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Div. Lucknow 1 thereby assessing him with regard to service tax and levying tax and interest of over Rs. 33 lakhs.
Case title - Fakre Alam @ Shozil vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41580 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 188
The Allahabad High Court quashed a rape and POCSO case against an accused after the victim stated that he had not committed any sexual offence against her and her mother filed the false case just to extract five lakh rupees from the accused, who is now her husband.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also noted that the victim was admittedly above 18 years of age and hence, no case under POCSO Act was made out against the accused.
The Court also observed that as per the medical examination, no injury was found on the victim, and no opinion about sexual assault was given against the victim, and despite this, the police filed a charge sheet in a routine manner without looking into the material collected during the investigation.
In view of this, the Court opined that the proceedings under POCSO Act as well as u/s 376 IPC could be quashed if no case is made out from the material available on record. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings of Case u/s 363, 366, 376(2N), 506 I.P.C. and 6 POCSO Act against the accused.
Case title - Sudhir Kumar vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1407 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 189
The Allahabad High Court restrained (for now) Al Jazeera Media Network Private Ltd. from telecasting/broadcasting/releasing the Film "India....Who lit the Fuse?" in India in view of 'evil consequences' that are likely to occur if the telecast/broadcast of the film is allowed to take place.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also directed the Central Government and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take appropriate measures to ensure that the film is not allowed to be telecast/broadcast unless its contents are examined by the authorities, and necessary certification/authorisation is obtained from the competent authority.
Case title - Jay Kant Bajpai @ Jay vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 190 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30712 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 190
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application filed by Jai Kant Bajpai alias Jai involved in the 2020 Kanpur Bikru Encounter, in which eight policemen were brutally murdered and seven other police personnel received grievous injuries at the hands of a gang of people led by slain gangster Vikas Dubey.
The bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed that Bajpai was actively involved in the incident and he actually assisted Dubey by providing him with Rs. 2 lakh and 25 cartridges to be used in the incident and further, provided vehicles to him to enable him to escape after committing one of the most heinous crimes.
Case title - Karuna Shanker and another vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 191 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 267 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Observing that mere non-recovery of the weapon cannot demolish the case of the prosecution, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to two murder convicts in a 41-year-old case.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav further observed that other accused involved in the crime remain untraced, it cannot be presumed that the whole incident is false
The bench concluded that the eyewitnesses in the case could prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that there was no reason to doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses.
“Hence it is well established from the evidence on record that murder of the deceased was committed by the convicts/appellants namely Karuna Shankar and Rajkishore in association with two unknown miscreants,” the Court said as it upheld their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Case title - Mohd. Aarif Alias Aarif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3922 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Special POCSO Court can treat an application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC as a complaint case under Section 190 (1) (a) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus:
“Concludingly, I am of the view that the trial court has ample power to treat the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC as a complaint case, therefore, in the POCSO Act proceedings of complaint case can be launched, as in this regard a statutory provision under Section 33 of the POCSO Act already exists. As per Section 33 of the POCSO Act, a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a police report of such facts. Thus, on the perusal of the entire provisions of the POCSO Act, it appears that there is no bar for prosecution and cognizance in the matter related to the complaint under Section 190 (1) (a) CrPC”
The Court held thus while refusing to quash a summoning order issued against the Accused as well as proceedings in a POCSO Case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bahraich.
Case title - Dr R.B. Lal And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1634 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 193
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant any relief to the VC of Allahabad's Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Dr Rajendra Bihari Lal and 7 others, in an FIR filed against them over the allegation of offering allurement to a man to convert to Christianity.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar also said that prima facie, Sections 3 & 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional.
Perusing the February 2023 FIR lodged in the case, the bench observed that the same contains direct allegations of allurement having been offered by Dr. Lal and 7 others to the first informant and, therefore, the Court added, such allegations, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Case title - Sachin Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6138 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR filed against the Secretary of UP Youth Congress, Sachin Chaudhary over his alleged remark pertaining to the 'love affair' between the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and Industrialist, founder and chairman of Adani Group, Gautam Adani.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed that the offence alleged in the FIR would definitely fall within the ambit of Section 153-A and Section 505(2) of IPC which are cognizable offence and hence, the FIR, cannot be quashed.
Essentially, the FIR in the matter was lodged at the instance of Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing leader Akshit Agarwal, who alleged that Chaudhary, in a press conference organised in Sambhal, used derogatory words against the Prime Minister by stating that he had a love affair/homosexual relation with (Gautam) Adani.
Case title - Dr. Kartikeya Sharma And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3107 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The Allahabad High Court observed that an anticipatory bail application moved by an accused can never be rejected on the ground that now a charge sheet has been filed in the matter or that the court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence.
Stressing that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested, the bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava also observed thus:
“…even if the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken by the court against the accused, who has got an immunity from being arrested during the course of investigation either by way of order of a competent court protecting him by grant of anticipatory bail or by service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, anticipatory bail application moved by him is legally maintainable…”
Case title - Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21056 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against one Rajesh Kumar accused of posting a very objectionable and disrespectable picture of Lord Hanuman on social media with a very objectionable tagline.
Terming the allegations in the FIR to be 'shocking', the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar noted that the HC cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and material relied upon while dealing with an application filed under a Section 482 challenging the charge sheet [Referred to Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 379].
Case title - Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10209 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 197
While holding that transfer cannot be sought as a matter of right, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Government's transfer policy for assistant teachers teaching in Basic Education Institutions run by the Basic Education Board.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava did not find any illegality in the policy of the State to restrict the entertainment of application for transfer in normal circumstances unless a particular teacher has completed a specified length of service (five years' service for male teachers and two years' service for female teachers) in the cadre.
Case title - Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 234 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The Allahabad High Court observed that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order of the Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that no appeal is maintainable against dropping contempt proceedings against the contemnor under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the remedy lies under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court.
Case title - Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22529 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC can sustain, after the rejection of the first application, if there are changes in the circumstances, entitling a person to be a claimant under the said provision.
Stressing that the liability to maintain under section 125 CrPC is a continuing one, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma was of the view that if the right to file an application for maintenance is foreclosed, it shall frustrate the very purpose of section 125 CrPC.
Case title - Raj Kumar @ Rajenda Srivas And 3 Others vs. Mohd. Kaukab Azim Rizvi And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5480 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the photocopy of the sale deed cannot be accepted as surety for the purposes of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 read with Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari noted that for the purposes of both the provisions, a surety should have been of the nature, which may be sold out as and when required and since, on the basis of the photocopy of the sale deed, no sale of the property can be made, therefore, such surety cannot be accepted.
Case title - Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3310 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection against alleged harassment at the hands of the police, the Allahabad High Court observed that the views expressed by the Supreme Court pertaining to 'live-in' relationships "cannot be considered to promote such relationships"
Observing that traditionally, Law has been biased in favour of marriage, the Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also stressed upon the need to create awareness in young minds regarding the emotional and societal pressures and legal hassles which may be created by such relations.
Case title - Raj Narain @ Ram vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1817 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The Allahabad High Court ordered for the immediate release of a man who was arrested and sent to jail in December last year in connection with the same crime for which he already underwent a 7-year sentence, 14 years ago.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy also recalled HC's November 15, 2022 order wherein a non-bailable Warrant was issued and in pursuance thereof, the appellant, who had already undergone the sentence, was again arrested and sent to Jail.
Case title - Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7496 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court observed that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
“…a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia observed.
NOMINAL INDEX
Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3
Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4
Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Melvin Saldanha And Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Pintu Kumar vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Devesh Verma vs. Christ Church College Throu Principal Hazratganj Lko.And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Vaibhav Kumar Pandey And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Kailash vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Paras Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Mokhtar Ansari vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Asif Khaliq vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Saumitra Anand and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Adarsh Bhushan vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Arvind Kejriwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Nafisa And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 24
State of U.P. vs. Mukhtar Ansari S/O Subhan Ullah Ansari 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Manjeet Alias Pintoo vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Vijay Masih (Pastor) vs. State Of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Sidhique Kappan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Nizamuddin Khan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Digvijay Chaube vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Mohd. Aslam vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Mohd. Ahmad Khan @ Ahmad Khan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Sajid @ Sajid Pardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Krishna Kumar (As Per Fir And The Charge Sheet Krishna Kumar Naayi ) And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Lokendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Dr.Priyanka Garg vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Nandini Sachan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Rajnish Chaurasia Alias Rajnesh Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Javed Mohammad @ Pump vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Lalita Gupta vs. High Court Of Judicature Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Fuzail vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu vs. Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Swami Chinmiyanand Saraswati Pupil vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 49
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 53
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan @ Raziwan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Chantara vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Suneeta Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assistant Director 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Salman Khurshid vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Kushwaha Mahasabha and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Santosh Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And 4 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 63
M/S Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Prem Narayan Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Anees vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Jose Prakash George And 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others vs. State Of UP and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 70
M/s Radha Fragrance versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Javed Mohammad @ Pump @ Javed Ahmad vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Aditya Raj Verma vs. State Of U.P. . And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Govind Prakash Pandey vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. India Represented By Its Assistant Director Lko. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Shakila Khatun vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Rajeev Bansal Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Umakant Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Ali @ Ali Ahmad @ Mohd Ali Ahmad vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And 15 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Kalika Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Rajesh Chandra @ Rakesh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 87
U.P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha.U.P.Officer Shri N.P.M.Vidy.Raebareli Thru. President Ankur Chaudhari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 89
X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Ramu Mallah vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Purushottam Chaudhary vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. The Superintendent Of Police Cbi/Acb Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Mohd. Mustaqeem vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Nia along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Satya Pal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Atikur Rehman vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Sujeet Sharma vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 98
In Re Disruption Of Power Supply In Prayagraj vs. State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Power U.P. Government And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Saroj Kumari vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Isha Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Khalid Azeem @ Ashraf vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Shrey Singh vs. Union Of India And 9 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mahendra Pal And Ors. vs. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Edu.Andors along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Deepak vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Agra Development Authority v. Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd. FAO No. 1033 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Mohammad Tariq Qashmi vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 113
M/S Radhika Constructions through its Proprietor Mr. Rakesh Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Deptt. Of Geology And Mines Lko. And another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Jugadi Alias Nijamuddin vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sect. Lko And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Mohd. Moeed vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui Vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Asif vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Vikash Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Urban Development Urban Development U.P. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 120
XXX And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thr.Its Sec. Home U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 121
In Re vs. Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Moti Lal Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Culture, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Shakti Singh vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Durvesh vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 126
S/S S.K. Trading Co Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2(Appeal) 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Reevan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Urmila Devi Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Pawan Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Pappu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Asif Ahmad Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Kamlesh Paswan And 6 Others vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Indra Pal and another vs. State of U.P. along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 140
U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Rajeev Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail pleas 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Udit Arya vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Afshan Ansari vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Laxmi Devi And 3 Otrs. vs. State Of U.P Thru Principal Sec.(Civil Sec.) Lko. Nd 5 Otrs. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Prashant Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Manas Vatsa vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Waseem Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Azaj Ahamad vs. U.O.I. Ministry Of Affairs Thru. Secy.And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director And Others vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 156
State of UP vs. Ajai Mishra @ Taini And 3 Ors along with a connected criminal revision plea 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Himanshu Kumar vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Ravindra Pratap Yadav vs. Asha Devi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Mujeem vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Guddu Verma vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Rajesh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168
M/S Imagine Fashion Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v Presiding Officer Commercial Court and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Md Sameer Rao vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Ibran @ Sheru vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Asharam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Devendra Singh And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Kundan Yadav vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Dr. Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti vs. State Of U.P And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Mohammad Zaid vs. tate of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Azaj Ahmad And Others vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights (Ncpcr) Thru. Its Chairperson And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Parvez Parwaz vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 179
Chand Babu @ Vishal vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Aarfa Bano Thru. Mohd. Hasim vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Rameshwar Lal Chauhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 183
Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 184
Bata India Limited & Anr. vs U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 185
Moti Lal Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Pankaj Khare vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Custom And Cgst, Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 187
Fakre Alam @ Shozil vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Sudhir Kumar vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Jay Kant Bajpai @ Jay vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 190
Karuna Shanker and another vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Mohd. Aarif Alias Aarif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 192
Dr R.B. Lal And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Sachin Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 194
Dr. Kartikeya Sharma And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 195
Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 196
Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 197
Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198
Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199
Raj Kumar @ Rajenda Srivas And 3 Others vs. Mohd. Kaukab Azim Rizvi And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Raj Narain @ Ram vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 202
Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 203
