Tag: Allahabad High Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference
7Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinct legal roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure to protect witnesses, while bail cancellation is a judicial remedy for violations of bail conditions. The existence of the Scheme cannot be a ground to deny cancellation of bail when an accused intimidates witnesses, as these are separate legal avenues serving different purposes. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No. 137 of 2022) lodged by the appellant, Phireram, for offences including murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High Court, subject to specific conditions prohibiting them from threatening witnesses or tampering with...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the legal imperative for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments to uphold the right to speedy justice. The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to strictly adhere to the guidelines established in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, mandating a monitoring mechanism by the Registrar General and the Chief Justice to ensure judgments are delivered within three months of being reserved. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, the de-facto complainant in the case, challenged interim orders from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad concerning a long-pending criminal appeal filed by respondent no. 2 in 2008. The core grievance was the inordinate delay in the High Court's disposal of this criminal appeal. The appeal had initially been heard at length by a Div...
Read More
Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Daughters-in-Law from Criminal Case Over Property Will
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Daughters-in-Law from Criminal Case Over Property Will

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, ruling the allegations did not prima facie constitute the alleged offences. Relying on Bhajan Lal, it held that criminal process cannot be used to settle civil disputes, as it amounts to an abuse of the court's process. Facts Of The Case: A testator, Shri Ram Baksh Dubey, executed an unregistered will in 1993 bequeathing his property to his four daughters-in-law, apprehensive that his third son, Ashish Kumar, would squander the estate. After the testator’s death in 1994, Ashish Kumar sold his purported share to the complainant, Balram, via a registered sale deed. The daughters-in-law, unaware of this sale, successfully obtained a mutation order in their favor based on the will. When Balram inte...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it can be invoked based on evidence collected during trial, even if the person was not charge-sheeted. The Court held that the standard for summoning an additional accused is stricter than a prima facie case but does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must show strong complicity, and the power should be exercised sparingly to ensure fairness. The Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, underscoring that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at this stage. The judgment reaffirmed that the provision aims to prevent the guilty from escaping justice. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 29th November 2017, w...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, applies only when the number of eligible candidates is less than the advertised vacancies. Since one recommended candidate was rejected, the next eligible candidate (appellant) should have been appointed instead of carrying forward the vacancy. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory rules in judicial appointments, reinforcing that vacancies must be filled from the existing merit list unless rules explicitly permit otherwise. The judgment clarifies that "selected direct recruits available for appointment" includes candidates next in line if recommended candidates are not approved. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Tosh Kumar Sharma, who participated in the 2016 recruitment proce...
Read More
Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an "ND" (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court's decree was restored, affirming the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which ...
Read More
Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...
Read More
Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging demand notices for depositing 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The Court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14. The State Government is empowered under Section 15A to fix the amount payable to the DMF for minor minerals. The Court found the demand consistent with statutory provisions and the 2017 Rules Facts Of The Case: Chandra Bhan Singh, a successful bidder for mining minor minerals (sand), was allotted a tender. In line with the Policy decision dated April 22, 2017, the Appellant was required to deposit an amount of ₹54,12,960/-, representing 10% of the total bid amount of ₹5,41,29,600/-, to the Dis...
Read More