Tag: HCupdates

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.