Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 12 – 18, 2025

Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168

Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169

Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170

Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171

Vignesh S. Shishir vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 172

Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 173

2025 LiveLaw (AB) 174

Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175

M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175

2025 LiveLaw (AB) 177

Lakhan And Others vs. State 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF WEEK

Snake Venom Case: Allahabad High Court Dismisses YouTuber Elvish Yadav's Plea Against Chargesheet, Summons

Case title - Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168

The Allahabad High Court dismissed YouTuber Elvish Yadav's plea against the chargesheet filed in the FIR against him for alleged misuse of snakes and snake venoms for making YouTube videos. Allegations against him also include organising rave parties and calling foreigners who make people consume snake venom and other intoxicating drugs.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed his plea after orally observing that there are statements in the chargesheet and in the FIR against Yadav and that the veracity of such allegations will be tested during the trial. The single judge also noted that Yadav had not challenged the FIR in the petition.

'Hajj Travel Not An Absolute Right, Can Be Undertaken After Serving Sentence': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To S. 304 IPC Convict

Case title - Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169

The Allahabad High Court refused to grant short-term bail to a man convicted under Section 304 IPC who sought to travel abroad for over a month to perform Hajj.

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed that the right to do a Pilgrimage tour to the Hajj is not absolute, and the same could be curtailed as granting bail at this point may increase the chances of him fleeing outside the clutches of the law of this country.

Rights Conferred By Hindu Succession Act Prevail Over Rights Claimed By Nominee U/S 39(7) Of Insurance Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2997 of 2022]

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170

The Allahabad High Court has held that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails over the Insurance Act, 1938 as the rights guaranteed to the successor under the former cannot be defeated by the rights guaranteed to the nominee under the latter enactment.

While dealing with the claim of the mother-nominee over the insurance money of her deceased daughter against the rights of the daughter of the deceased, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,

“On harmonious interpretation of the two provisions i.e. Insurance Act and Hindu Succession Act, the rights conferred by Hindu Succession Act will prevail over the rights claimed by the nominee under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, the succession act being specific to succession in contradiction to the Insurance Act which is general.”

Under Trial Must Obtain Permission From Court To Travel Abroad Prior To Applying For Issue/ Re-Issue/ Renewal Of Passport: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that an under trail must obtain permission for travelling abroad from the Court concerned prior to applying for issue, re-issue or renewal of passport before the passport authority.

The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held

“A plain reading of the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and the beneficial Notification issued in terms of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 leads to the sole logical conclusion that in all cases wherein criminal proceedings are pending and have been denied the issuance of passport by the operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the under-trial, as a condition precedent has to first seek permission or NOC from the Court concerned, wherein the trial is pending, to travel abroad or depart, for which essentially a passport is required and then only as a condition subsequent apply to the passport authority for issuance of the passport for a particular period as mentioned in the permission order itself or for the period as mentioned in GSR 570(E) dated 25th of August, 1993.”

'Another Round Of Litigation': Allahabad HC Allows Withdrawal Of PIL Seeking Cancellation Of Rahul Gandhi's Citizenship

Case title – Vignesh S. Shishir vs UOI and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 172

The Allahabad High Court today dismissed as withdrawn a fresh PIL plea moved by a BJP Member seeking the cancellation of Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha, Rahul Gandhi's citizenship. The plea also sought a ban on him travelling abroad during the pendency of his citizenship issue.

During the course of the hearing, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I pointed out that the instant petition was 'another round of litigation' and that the petitioner had nothing new or relevant material to seek indulgence of the Court.

Sub-Divisional Officer Not Empowered To Grant Declaration Of Bhumidhar Rights On Administrative Side/ Without Adjudication: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41221 of 2024]

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 173

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been empowered to grant a declaration of bhumidhar rights on administraive side.

While dealing with a case where petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for grant of declaration of absolute bhumidhar rights and decision on representation filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,

“A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that all the three provisions; Sections 131A, 131B of Act, 1950 and 76 of Code, 2006 speak of conferment of status upon the concerned tenure holder as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, however, the provisions do not provide for a forum for making conferment or such declaration. Certainly, the Sub-Divisional Officer or any other officer has not been held to be empowered, on administrative side, to grant such a declaration in favour of concerned tenure holder under the aforesaid provisions.”

Quran Allowed Polygamy For A Fair Reason, But Men Misuse It For Selfish Purposes: Allahabad HC Bats For UCC

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 174

The Allahabad High Court observed that while Islam permits more than one marriage under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, this permission is 'widely misused' even against the mandate of Muslim law.

The Court underscored that Polygamy was conditionally permitted under the Quran during early Islamic times to protect widows and orphans after heavy wartime casualties, however, the said provision is now being misused by men for 'selfish purposes'

Annexing Case Diary Extracts With Bail Plea Now A Norm, Bail Can't Be Opposed Or Denied On This Ground: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175

The Allahabad High Court observed that neither a person can be denied bail nor his bail plea be opposed mainly on the ground that extracts of the case diary had been annexed with his bail plea.

“It is a basic principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing, which would include providing copies of the material against him”, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed while allowing bail to a murder-accused on the grounds of parity.

Pendency Of Arbitration Does Not Bar Stamp Authorities From Initiating Proceedings Under Stamp Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13451 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 176

The Allahabad High Court has held that pendency of arbitral proceedings does not bar the of jurisdiction of Stamp Authorities from initiating proceedings under Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

In Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Supreme Court while dealing with an unstamped agreement, held that insufficiency of stamp duty would not result in stopping arbitration proceedings. It was held that the Arbitrator was competent to decide on sufficiency of stamp duty, and if he concluded that there was insufficiency in stamp duty paid, then the same could be impounded and referred to competent authority.

Constitution Doesn't Back Forced Conversion; Presuming A Religion's Superiority Over Another Is Against Secularism: Allahabad HC

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 177

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to 'freely' profess, practise, and propagate religion, and it doesn't endorse forced or fraudulent conversions.

Stressing that the use of the word 'freely' in Article 25 of the Constitution of India underscores the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said:

“Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. However, this right is expressly subject to public order, morality, and health, which provides a constitutional foundation for regulating religious conversions that are procured through coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence. These limitations are essential in ensuring that the exercise of religious freedom does not disrupt the societal fabric or endanger individual and communal well-being” (emphasis supplied)

Non-Explanation Of Injuries To Accused Prima Facie Supports His Self-Defence Plea, Casts Doubt On Prosecution: Allahabad HC

Case title - Lakhan And Others vs. State 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that when injuries occur to both the accused and the complainant in the same incident, and the injuries to the accused are not explained by the prosecution, it raises doubts about whether the true origin and nature of the incident have been fully and honestly presented.

Such omissions can impact the credibility of the prosecution's case and warrant a more cautious scrutiny of the evidence by the court, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed while setting aside the conviction of two in a 48-year-old murder case.