Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

Absence of Prima Facie Case and Prolonged Custody Key for Bail Grant - Allahabad High Court in UAPA Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Lucknow, March  2024: The Allahabad High Court, in a landmark decision, has granted bail to Masood, in the case titled Masood Vs. The State Of U.P., underlining the absence of a prima facie case against the appellant and the significance of prolonged custody. The Bench comprising Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J., and Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J., delivered the judgment on March 12, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No. - 54 of 2023, reversing the order dated 06.12.2022 that had previously denied bail to Masood.

The crucial legal aspect of the judgment revolved around the appellant's entitlement to bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, amidst charges under the IPC, UAPA, and IT Act. The judgment specifically dealt with the absence of a prima facie case against Masood and his right to bail considering his extended period in custody.

The appellant, Masood, faced accusations under various stringent laws, including the IPC, UAPA, and IT Act, leading to his prolonged incarceration since October 5, 2020. The appeal was centered on the ground that there was no substantive evidence linking Masood to the alleged offences, which echoed the circumstances under which co-accused were previously granted bail.

The Court scrupulously examined the allegations, observing that Masood was not linked to any terrorist organization nor involved in any activity warranting charges under the stringent sections of the UAPA and IT Act. It was noted, "The allegations made in the F.I.R. and the contents of the case diary...clearly evince that accusation made against the appellant is, prima facie, false."

Granting the appeal, the Court allowed Masood's bail, emphasizing the parity in treatment with the co-accused who had been granted bail and the undue length of Masood's custody. The bail was subject to several conditions, including a personal bond, restricted travel, and instructions not to influence witnesses or evidence. The Court clarified that this order should not influence the trial proceedings.

Date of Decision: 12th March 2024

Masood Vs. The State Of U.P.

Latest Legal News