Tag: #AllahabadHC

The plea for change in dress code for advocates has been brought under Allahabad HC on Friday and issued a notice to the bar council of India. Where the existing dress code of black coat and the robes for lawyers were alleged against the climate condition of India. This was held by the under the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava.

The plea also started quashing which mandates the advocates to wear black robes before the court. Also prays to change the dress code of all judges of courts, tribunals, authorities, as prescribed under the advocate’s bar council of India, rules 1975.

The petitioner contended in the plea for change in dress code is not before the climatic condition of the country but the main notion is that the white color band is indicating the Christianity symbol and the white sari and salwar kameez for the women is the symbol of widow ladies as per the Hindu tradition. Then the petitioner also challenged the provisions of the BCI rules of chapter 4 which was framed in 1975 under section 49(i)(gg) of Advocates Act 1961. This was alleged beyond the powers of the constitution by violating the article 14, 21 and 25. And changing the dress code of the color back and white is like completely breaking the tradition that has been in force as a sought of custom.

Criticizing this the petitioner asked the bar council to change the dress code in the pattern provided for the navy, air forces, and army. So bench directed this issue to the center and the high court administration to their respective responses by August 18.

-Report by AJISHA

In the matter, the applicant had applied for bail in Allahabad High Court which was denied by the court on 5th July. The case is relating to the Honor killing where victim Jyoti and Rahul got married o against their family members’ consent. Their families were against their marriage as they belong to a different caste.

It is been alleged that due to the caste difference they still got married which has hurt their family honor that’s the reason the Applicant who is the brother of Jyoti and her other family members had eliminated her and killed shot her husband Rohit.

During the argument, the Applicants Counsel stated that the role of assaulting was done by another family member of the applicants but not by the Applicant himself. The people who are accused to be involved are Jyoti’s father, Jyoti’s Uncle, and her brother.

Justice J.J.Munir of Allahabad High Court while hearing the plea of bail application states that “there is no place for those citizens in the society who go to the extent of eliminating a family member for choosing a life partner of his/her choice”. Court also stated that it is the case of brazen of honor killing where family members of Jyoti have prima facie sought to redeem through this crime. So the court has refused his bail.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

The Allahabad High Court has taken the severe word of “half-backed” gang-charts being filed below the UP Gangster Act 1986, which in the end allows alleged gangsters in “effortlessly acquiring bail”, thereby threatening the order of the civil society.

A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi discovered that within side the age of the internet, in which facts of whole international is at one’s fingertips. “The callous and careless technique in getting ready the crowd chart could now no longer best adversely affect the possibilities of crook prosecution towards that individual, who’s harden criminals however the very item of the enactment could additionally pass haywire. The accused could have a clean get entry to of the bails from the regulation courts,” the Bench discovered.

It stated that 35 years have lapsed because of the enactment, but no Rules had been framed below the 1986 Act. Taking gain of this, best an incomplete and 1/2 of sponsored gang-charts are organized through the informants of various bail applications.

The Bench consequently directed the Principal Secretary (Homes), Lucknow, and the Director-General of Police, Lucknow to Start a workout to border-right Rules below the 1986 Act, brand new through thirty-first December 2021. “It is noticeably unstable to allow such individuals to roam around freely within side the open society and the harmless individuals of society stay at the tentacle hooks as long as the stated accused is a loose guy and posing severe hazard to the orderly society. Thus, after making use of the stringent provisions of this Act, State has were given proper to screw such individuals, positioned them in the back of the bars and fasten their ill-gotten money,” the Court discovered.

From here, the Court made two-fold observations:

• Incomplete and faulty gang chart which does now no longer imply the accused’s entire beyond credentials, giving enough room for miscarriage of justice, resultantly, the accused-applicant tends to be bailed out effortlessly.
• The regulation is frequently misused and the named accused is mounted with extra crook legal responsibility below the Gangsters Act. The Court deprecated the ‘poisonous’ exercise of including greater fees on the degree of bail, as it can prejudice the lawsuits.

Indeed, in the opinion of the Court, it’s miles a cabbalistic and mysterious scenario in which the candidates on the degree in their bail earlier than this Court is being taken through marvel through the State. This is past the settled tenets of truthful play and equality. No accused will be taken through marvel ” the Bench discovered. It added, “The Court has skilled that that police government has fastened plural numbers of lawsuits below the aforesaid Act, without ready the very last final results from the regulation courts concerning the sooner lawsuits.

The Special Judge(Gangster Act) which can be operational in each Sessions Divisions within side the State also are directed to hurry up the trial and make all vital endeavor to finish the identical inside a year of submission of its fee sheet. The intending below the U.P. Gangster Act will be given precedence over every other trial.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, refuses to grant custody of a ‘minor’ husband to his wedded ‘major’ wife. The Hon’ble Court says that such an act would amount to an offence under the POCSO Act. The bench headed by Justice J.J Muneer, is of the view, that the marriage between a minor and major is voidable at the option of the party, as given under the POCSO Act and if allowed to stay together, it would result in sanctioning cohabitation between a minor and major.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioner, named as Haushila Devi, is the mother of Manish, age 16 years and who is also made as to the petitioner number one by her mother, alleges in hon’ble court that the respondents, namely, Jyoti and her family members forced her son into procuring matrimonial ties with Jyoti, who is a major and is also the respondent number one in the aforesaid case. The learned counsel on behalf of Haushila Devi, claims that her son, Manish has been illegally confined in the house of the respondents, and the conspiracy of the said offence is carried by Jyoti, her mother Pamila Devi, and her two brothers. The petitioner has filed a writ of habeas corpus (to produce the body) in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to retain the care and custody of the minor child, Manish, back to her mother who is also the natural guardian of Manish, as claimed by the petitioner number two, Haushila Devi. The learned counsel argues further, that, Manish being a minor of age 16 years is under no competence to enter into any such life-long holy agreements like marriage. They claim that the marriage so performed is void under the provisions laid down in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petitioner further claims that since Manish is a minor as per the law, hence, he cannot be entrusted with the decision-making choice of residing with the strangers, thereby the care and custody should be handed over to the natural guardian, i.e.- her mother, Haushila Devi, also the petitioner number two in the said case.

Respondent’ Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, i.e.- Jyoti and her family members, contends that the legislature did not outlay any such provisions of the aftermath about the marriage being solemnized in breach of section 5 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He argues that the marriage is neither void nor voidable, but valid. As per the law, the penal punishment would be inflicted upon the party who was a major at the time of the commission of such foul act. The learned counsel is of the view that if both the party is minor at the time of such acts, then their parents upon whom the responsibility was bestowed, would be dealt as per the law. He further argues that no matter who suffers the penal consequences, the marriage cannot be solemnized being void or voidable. The learned counsel says that holding a marriage to be void under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, it should strictly adhere to the stipulations laid down under section 12 of the said Act, else the marriage could be declared as voidable at the option of the party who was minor at the time of marriage. The respondents argued through their learned counsel that Manish who is a minor of 16 years, is about to attain majority and hence, should be bestowed upon with the responsibility of residing with whomsoever he chooses. Section 17 of the Wards Act, 1890 lays down the provision for the minor to chose his/her natural guardian through their own. Therefore since Manish does not want to stay wither mother, he cannot be compelled by the hon’ble court to do so.

Judgment

The bench of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, led by Justice J.J Muneer, in the aforesaid case of Manish and Anr v. State of U.P. and 7 others, that the marriage in the said case is voidable at the option of the party who is a minor, i.e.- Manish of age 16 years. The Hon’ble court said it loud and clear that they cannot allow the care and custody of the Manish to be entrusted with his wife as it would originate an event that could facilitate the cohabitation between the minor and the major, regarded as an offence under the POCSO Act, 2006. The court even considered the essential fact of the POCSO Act, that it prevents any sort of cohabitation between the major and the minor. The Lordship also highlighted the sections under the POCSO Act, which defines the offence and also inlays the penal consequences, under sections 3 & 4 respectively, irrespective of the age or sex of the offender. The Hon’ble court ordered to send the minor into the state facilities like ‘Child Home’ to reside till he attains the age of 18 years and thereby he can choose with whom to reside after completion of his age as major. If he still chooses to stay with her mother during the said period, he would have to apply the Child Welfare Committee Act, 2012. The order should comply immediately.

On 11 June Allahabad High Court, a bench of justice SP kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed directed the State Government to strictly implement its policy of granting compensation to a citizen, who has been illegally detained.

The court has been dealing with 2 illegal detention one of which was filed by Shiv Kumar Verma, who was illegal detained by police on 8 October as he was having some ancestral property dispute with his relatives. After he is detained the detention is extended till 21 October and just because of the verification of the paperwork is detention was extended. Such has been increasing and is harassment by the public authorities. So he demanded compensation for the period.

After understanding the problem Allahabad High Court felt the need to implement policy to solve this problem. The court also observed that the harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially disliking and legally impermissible and it may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Accordingly, Allahabad High Court directed Uttar Pradesh Government to strictly implement its policy of granting compensation of Rs. 25,000 to a victim of illegal detained and direct disciplinary action.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, on last Friday, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Azam Khan, the prominent leader of the Samajwadi Party and the Member of Parliament from his party. His motion was dismissed in kin with the unlawful appointment of more than one thousand clerks, stenographers, and engineers in the Jal Nigam of Uttar Pradesh, as he was the prime accused behind this unlawful act during his term as a minister in the SP government’s rule in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Petitioner’s Contention

The learned counsel of the applicant moved an application under section 438 of CrPC, i.e.- anticipatory bail, to avail some sort of relief from the Hon’ble High Court, on the account of being arrest arrested, and further taken into judicial custody in kin with the Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, charged under section 409, 420, 120-B, 201 and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, Police Station SIT of Lucknow District. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant also contended that mereloy6 serving the jail authorities with B-warrant and communicating the same to the accused, nowhere signifies that the applicant has been retained in custody and hence the bail application under section 438 of the CrPC is maintainable. The learned counsel even argued, that even if the issuance of B-warrant has been done and communicated to the accused, yet the accused is entitled to bail as the charge sheet concerning this case was filed after the prescribed period of Ninety Days, by the investigation team.

Respondent’s Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the state, contended that the F.I.R. was filed on 25.04.2018 on the grounds of the inquiry set up by the Special Investigating Team U.P., Lucknow regarding the felonies of biased enrichment, the disappearance of documents and destroying them, so that it cannot be laid as a piece of evidence against the criminal conspiracy of conspiring 1300 people on the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Clerk, and Stenographer.

It was further perceptible that the present F.I.R. was lodged against the other four by the conducting Investigation Officer. While the applicant was taken into custody concerning another case with F.I.R. No. 980 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur, an F.I.R. No. 392 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur and put in District Jail, Sitapur. There is sheer evidence of a B-warrant issued by the court, which was received by the Jail Authorities and communicated the same to the applicant within a day. The facts and figured were laid down. Given all the facts and analysis, the applicant is considered to be in custody concerning the current F.I.R. No. 2 of 2018 and issued B-Warrant issued by the competent court under the provisions of Section 267(1) CrPC.

The Court’s Order

The division bench of Hon’ble High Court, headed by Justice Rajeev Singh, reject the motion of filing the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Azam Khan, and observed while doing, that the accused is already under detention and a B-warrant has been issued against him by the competent court under the section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and has also been duly communicated to him. The Court further highlighted the fact that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused on the grounds of preliminary investigation, carried forward by the SIT, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The accused was held liable for the unlawful appointment of more than a thousand engineers, clerks, and stenographers giving them unjust enrichment, doing forgery, conspiracy, and destroying pieces of evidence for the same. The court also stated that “It is also evident that B-warrant was issued by the competent court on 18.11.2020 was received by the Jail Authorities of District Jail Sitapur who communicated the same to the applicant on 19.11.2020”. The division bench of the court also took into consideration, the case of Bobby (Paramveer) and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which they highlighted the key feature that while the Criminal Court issues the B-warrant, it has to satisfy the fact that the issuance of the same is just and proper. The issuance of the same means that the accused is already under detention. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the application moved by the accused, Azam Khan under section 438 of the CrPC is not maintainable, yet the court opened a way for the accused to move under regular bail if he so desires.

Allahabad HC’s Justice Om Prakash VII on Friday rejected the bail application of Bhadohi MLA Vijay Mishra alias Vijay Kumar Mishra, accused of several cases under several sections of Indian Penal Code and IT Act of Gopiganj Police Station in Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi dist.)

On August 4, 2020, an FIR was lodged by informant Krishan Mohan Tiwari against Ramlali Mishra and Vishnu Mishra, mentioning that applicant is a relative of the informant. After winning the election of block pramukh, he became active in politics. And since 2001, the applicant is alleged to be residing in the informant’s house and is busy with politics and his business without the complete consent of the applicant. He was forcibly residing and threatening and torturing them as he is a relative and presently the elected member of the Legislative assembly from Gyanpur.

The informants’ contractual work was also overtaken by the applicant and started doing all the work along with depositing the money from transactions in the account of his firm and his wife and son. He took possession of all the documents by forcibly getting signed on the cheques and using net banking in the name of the informant. The informant was unaware of all these acts.

The family and informant were threatened with dire consequences as the applicant is a dreaded criminal and the informant was in no position to file a complaint due to threats. The applicant is not only vacating the forcibly occupied house but is also pressuring the informant to execute the will in the name of the applicant’s son. On refusal, threats were extended. Informants’ apprehensions we’re shown in FIR as the applicant is a muscleman. The informant may become landless if the applicant is successful in his acts. A prayer was made to take legal action for securing the life and property of the informant and his family members and was submitted to Chaturvedi, Senior advocate, appearing for the applicant, that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed person in the Society and was elected four times as MLA. He was also Block Pramukh and President of Zila Panchayat of District Sant Ravidas Nagar.

Referring to the contents of the FIR, it was further submitted that offence under section 449 IPC is not attracted in this matter. Informant himself has admitted in the FIR that the applicant was residing in the said house with the consent of the informant.

It was further argued that if such was the position, offence of criminal trespass cannot be constituted in this matter. Simply it was a dispute of partnership business which is pure of civil nature. Efficacious remedies will be available to the parties in civil suits/arbitration cases. An appeal against the order passed in the arbitration matter is also pending before the Court. Referring to the copy of the Will deed annexed with the application, it was further argued that there was no occasion to obtain a Will deed in favor of Vishnu Mishra, the son of the applicant. The said Will has not been executed. This fact also shows that offences leveled in the matter are not attracted against the applicant.

A Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and further argued that the applicant is suffering from several diseases. He is in jail since August 14, 2020, and further argued that in all the previous criminal cases against the applicant, they are either withdrawn or the applicant is acquitted. The pending cases are not heinous and some may be due to political rivalry. Also, the disputed property belongs to the applicant exclusively and the said transactions made were done with the complainant’s consent. The applicant should not be kept behind the bars on the grounds of no of cases lodged against him. As a law-abiding person, he was granted bail in 2013 against a criminal trial going considering the entire criminal cases pending against the applicant up to the year 2013.

But as per Additional Advocate General appearing for State and counsel for the informant, the applicant is an influential person and no one dares to lodge an FIR against him and he’s a participant in several heinous cases. The counsel for the informant also argued that no one dares to provide evidence against the applicant hence he was acquitted. The no of cases was withdrawn due to pressure or influence by the govt. Also, the will feed was being executed in the name of Vishnu Mishra, the applicant’s son, only because of pressure created over the informant, but since he left the Registry office, the deed was not executed. Referring to the counter affidavit, it was further argued that a criminal case for the offence under section 376 IPC is also pending against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will put pressure upon the witnesses. Thus, prayer was made for the rejection of bail.

Thus, having considered the submissions raised across the bar and going through the entire record, and also looking to the nature of allegations leveled against the applicant, the apprehension shown by the informant in the F.I.R. cannot be denied particularly because of criminal antecedents of the applicant.

The Court believes that prayer made for bail in the application is not liable to be allowed and is hereby rejected”, the Court ordered.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

A Journalist and others, accused of destroying ballot boxes and firing during gram panchayat elections in UP were granted anticipatory bail by Allahabad HC. This was granted by a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh on June 9, while hearing a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed by Shiv Prasad Harijan and another on behalf of the applicants in a case registered under relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code, Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Peoples Representation Act at Police Station Kandhai in district Pratapgarh of Uttar Pradesh.

Shiv Prasad, as a reporter of Hindi newspaper Pratap Kiran, reported that On April 19, 2021, the election of gram panchayat was scheduled and he was covering the news at polling booth (village Utrash), wherein he reported about the irregularities on the polling both by authorities and influential people via Twitter. The annoyed authorities and police beat up the voters on the spot. On objecting, an FIR was lodged and the villagers and applicants along with their families were dragged into this, because of the coverage of mismanagement of authorities

The applicant’s counsel opposed the allegations of firing and destruction of ballot boxes by the villagers as the police intended to arrest them due to the reporting and coverage on Twitter. He also states that the applicants are entitled to get anticipatory bail instead of their cooperation in the investigation. Whereas the Additional Government Advocate opposed the anticipatory bail by stating the instructions of the FIR.

The Court ordered that till the next date of listing, Shiv Prasad and Ramdhari in the aforesaid case shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs 50,000 with the following conditions:

• The applicant shall show up for interrogations as and when required.
• The applicant in no way shall tamper with facts so as mislead the facts to court or police
• The applicants cannot leave the district without courts prior permission.

The next hearing date is on 7 July 2021

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Allahabad High Court had recently given a few rules and guidelines for cases where anticipatory bail can be allowed even after the submission of the charge sheet.

On June 5, 2021, The Allahabad High Court came down heavily on a petitioner for documenting anticipatory bail applications straightforwardly in the High Court, expressing that it was necessary to mention special circumstances for applying to the High Court.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 documented by Bhopal and two others.

The Anticipatory Bail Application was moved by the candidates straightforwardly under the steady gaze of the Court looking for anticipatory bail for a situation recorded at Police Station Sahibabad in District Ghaziabad of Uttar Pradesh.

The court observed that there must be compelling or special circumstances entitling a party to directly approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail

After examining the whole record, the Court tracked down that in the expectant bail application, the candidate has not referenced any convincing or uncommon situation to move toward the Court straightforwardly without the avenue as available before the Court of Sessions being exhausted.

-Report by Anuj Dhar