Five Judges bench of Calcutta High Court ordered for CBI and SIT for investigating post poll violence in West Bengal – Read Order

All the cases where, as per the report of the Committee, the allegations are about murder of a person and crime against women regarding rape/attempt to rape, shall be referred to CBI for investigation. The Committee, NHRC, any other Commission or Authority and the State shall immediately hand over entire record of the cases entrusted to the CBI for investigation. It is made clear that it shall be the Court monitored investigation. Any obstruction in the course of investigation by anyone shall be viewed seriously. 

DHC Dismissed Juhi Chawla’s Suit against 5G testing for wasting time, imposed cost-04/06/2021

Since the 5G roll-out has not actually happened, though - equally damaging - trials involving the human population have started (which is not the same as doing trials on pigs and/or rats, and/or in an empty Thar Desert, or on the employees of the private defendants) - so that not even one single human life is lost by these trials, the plaintiffs are agreeable if this Court, while waiving the requirement of Section 80(1) of the CPC, grants fair opportunity to the State Defendants to show cause as to why no interim relief be granted which, in any case, is sought against the private defendants, and not against the State defendants.

Central Vista Project has national importance, where sovereign functions of Parliament are to be conducted-DHC-31/05/2021

This work is part and parcel of Central Vista Project and of vital public importance. The construction of Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project cannot be seen in isolation. In fact, the whole Central Vista Project is an essential project of National importance, where the sovereign functions of Parliament are also to be conducted. Public is vitally interested in this project.

Where rights which are claimed are purely of a private character no mandamus to be issued- Allahabad HC-19/11/2020

Where the rights which are sought to be agitated are purely of a private character no mandamus can be claimed, and even if the relief is sought against the State or any of its instrumentality the pre-condition for the issuance…

Conviction for “Dacoity” of less than five persons is not sustainable-Allhabad HC-09/07/2020

It is thus clear that for recording conviction of an offence of robbery, there must be five or more persons. In absence of such finding, an accused cannot be convicted for an offence of dacoity. In a given case, however, it may happen that there may be five or more persons and the factum of five or more persons is either not disputed or is clearly established, but the court may not be able to record a finding as to identity of all the persons said to have committed dacoity and may not be able to convict them and order their acquittal observing that their identity is not established.

Prosecution fails to explain injuries of accused, this lacuna entitles to bail-Allahabad HC-3/9/2020

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused as well and prima facie this lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case, entitles the applicants to be enlarged on bail. However, there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case but that would apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial.

Religious freedom is not absolute- Govt can ban Qurbani under COVID lockdown-Allahabad HC-29/7/2020

Dr. Mohammad Ayub vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors-It is pertinent to mention that guarantee of the Fundamental Rights has been made subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State. The power to impose reasonable restrictions may be necessary in the interest of public order, morality and health provided the restrictions so imposed are not unreasonable and arbitrary.

Gravity of offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile- Allahabad HC-07/08/2020

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned orders. The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and does not fall into that special category of a juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed differently, in case, they are found to be of a mature mind and persons well understanding the consequences of their actions.