Latest Allahabad Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal granted bail to Sandeep Baisoya, finding the police never supplied grounds of arrest and skipped the mandatory pre-recovery panchnama at the police station.
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench disposed of a criminal PIL filed by a Bengaluru resident seeking NIA and ED inquiry into an alleged anti-national organisation, finding no Uttar Pradesh nexus.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissed a writ appeal by occupants of Survey No.1413/1 at Shyamla Hills after they failed to produce any documentary evidence of lease, ownership, or forest-produce livelihood.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a union's challenge to census duty assignments for LIC staff, holding that the Census Act and Rules permit engagement of employees from any establishment.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holds that once a court takes cognizance on a charge sheet, the right to challenge an initial remand order by habeas corpus is extinguished.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore enhanced a wife's maintenance from Rs 2,000 to Rs 6,000 per month, holding that a child marriage victim cannot be denied reasonable support.
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench found that a District Legal Services Authority cannot grant divorce, declared no valid divorce existed, and ordered the ruling circulated to all DLSA offices in Uttar Pradesh.
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench acquitted a murder convict after finding that the trial court had relied on witness statements recorded before the accused was even summoned to face trial.
The High Court of Tripura held that a writ court does not lose jurisdiction to extend its own compliance deadline, provided no fresh cause of action is introduced.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore enhanced maintenance for a wife and minor daughter of a government servant, holding that a son's technical education expenses cannot restrict the daughter's right to dignified support.
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench found that four women were implicated only through later witness statements, with no mention in the original complaint or the eyewitness account of the complainant's father.
The Allahabad High Court found that an SHO arrested a man on 4 April 2026 despite a coordinate bench's stay order, keeping him in jail for 25 days, and directed the State to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation recoverable from the officer.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur held that a person not recorded as Bhumiswami in revenue records has no right to apply for partition under Section 178 of the MPLRC, 1959.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior quashed an attachment order dated 8 May 2026, holding it violated the State's GAD Circular, transfer policy, and the settled rule against punitive transfers.
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition after the Additional District Magistrate, Prayagraj, finally allowed a 2022 application for conversion from Islam to Sanatan Dharma under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The Allahabad High Court held that a conviction recorded by a Juvenile Justice Board carries no disqualification under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and cannot be used to refuse a passport.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a 12-month NSA detention order against Isham, finding the alleged cow slaughter occurred within four walls and caused no public disturbance.
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail to Vasik Tyagi, jailed since June 2025 for Facebook posts extolling Pakistan, as charges remained unframed after nearly a year.
A Division Bench held that nominating an advocate in an FIR for a professional act of filing a statutory appeal strikes at the roots of Articles 14 and 21 and the right to legal assistance.
The Lucknow Bench held that criminal liability cannot be fastened on a Chairman and Managing Director merely by designation, absent specific allegations or statutory vicarious liability.
The Lucknow Bench upheld convictions under Section 304-B IPC but commuted life imprisonment and 20-year terms to the periods already undergone, citing proportionality principles from Supreme Court precedent.
The Indore Bench held that courts cannot dictate precise security modalities under Article 226, even where an inter-religious couple faces documented threats.
