Sajjad Husain Law Associates

The judgment concerns a bail application in the case of
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 386 of 2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, decided by Hon’ble Justice Manish Kumar.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was lodged under Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC alleging that the informant’s daughter was in a relationship with the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant had promised to marry her, but later refused, after which the girl committed suicide on 18/19.05.2024.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argued that:
The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of six days.
This was merely a “broken relationship” case and not abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
There was no evidence showing intentional instigation, aid, or provocation for suicide.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments including:
Kamaruddin Dasagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka
Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan
These judgments held that mere harassment or refusal to marry does not automatically amount to abetment of suicide unless there is direct or indirect incitement.
Court’s Findings
The Court observed that:
Prima facie, ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC were not made out.
There was no material showing intentional aid or instigation to commit suicide.
The matter appeared to be a “simple case of broken relationship.”
The FIR was delayed by six days without explanation.
The Court also relied upon:
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat regarding anticipatory bail principles.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh emphasizing protection of personal liberty and caution against unnecessary arrests.
Final Order
The Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till further orders.
Conditions imposed included:
Cooperation with investigation.
No threat or inducement to witnesses.
Not leaving India without Court permission.
The applicant was directed to furnish:
Personal bond of ₹50,000
Two sureties of the like amount.
The matter was directed to be listed again in the week commencing 20.07.2026.

Find judgement
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 386 of 2026
Aashif Khan Vs. State of UP & Ors

t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/342

elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloa…

Follow on Social Media Youtube Link youtube.com/@SajjadHusainLawAssociates Facebook Page Link www.facebook.com/advocatesajjadofficial Insta Link www.instagram.com/sajjad_husain_law_associates/ Linkedin www.linkedin.com/in/sajjad-husain-associates-law WhatsApp Link wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Google My Business Link wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Tumblr www.tumblr.com/dashboard Twitter Link twitter.com/home E-mail ID advocatesajjad@mail.com visit & contact detail www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com E-Mail ID sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India WhatsApp, IMO, Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com/news/marriage-pr…

2 days ago | [YT] | 8

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Arrest पर ऐतिहासिक फैसला — गिरफ्तारी के कारण लिखित रूप में बताना अनिवार्य

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad का बड़ा निर्णय

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ने *Shivam Chaurasia vs State of U.P.* मामले में महत्वपूर्ण फैसला देते हुए कहा कि किसी भी व्यक्ति की गिरफ्तारी करते समय केवल FIR नंबर और धाराएं बताना पर्याप्त नहीं है, बल्कि “grounds of arrest” यानी गिरफ्तारी के वास्तविक कारण लिखित रूप में देना संवैधानिक रूप से अनिवार्य है।

मामले में पुलिस ने आरोपी को गिरफ्तार कर POCSO Court से judicial remand प्राप्त किया था। हालांकि हाईकोर्ट ने पाया कि arrest memo में केवल मुकदमे की धाराएं लिखी गई थीं, जबकि गिरफ्तारी के वास्तविक कारण स्पष्ट नहीं बताए गए थे। बाद में पुलिस द्वारा अलग से grounds of arrest दिखाए गए, लेकिन कोर्ट ने उन्हें अविश्वसनीय माना क्योंकि वे arrest memo का हिस्सा नहीं थे और आवश्यक प्रक्रिया का पालन नहीं किया गया था।

कोर्ट ने Supreme Court के महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय *Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra (2026)* पर भरोसा करते हुए कहा कि Article 21 और 22(1) के तहत गिरफ्तारी के कारण लिखित रूप में बताना व्यक्ति का मौलिक अधिकार है। यदि यह प्रक्रिया नहीं अपनाई जाती, तो गिरफ्तारी और उसके आधार पर दिया गया remand दोनों अवैध हो सकते हैं।

हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि यदि मूल गिरफ्तारी ही illegal है, तो बाद का remand order भी स्वतः प्रभावित होगा। कोर्ट ने पुलिस कार्रवाई को संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों के विपरीत मानते हुए गिरफ्तारी को अवैध घोषित कर दिया तथा remand order रद्द करते हुए आरोपी की रिहाई का आदेश दिया।

यह फैसला BNSS 2023 के तहत गिरफ्तारी प्रक्रिया और नागरिक स्वतंत्रता की सुरक्षा के लिए एक महत्वपूर्ण precedent माना जा रहा है।

Find Judgement
Shivam Chaurasia Vs State of UP HC LKO Judgement dt. 10.02.2026 inofrmation to accused choice or family is constutionally mandatory not in famal in nature
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/338
&
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloa… for PDF
&
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJud… (for text)
visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp, IMO, Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

6 days ago | [YT] | 10

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Supreme Court Big Relief in Suicide Abetment Case | Love Affair & Marriage Refusal Not Enough for 306 IPC

In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that merely refusing to marry a person after a relationship does not automatically amount to “abetment of suicide” under Section 306 IPC.

Facts of the Case:

A 21-year-old girl was allegedly in a relationship with the accused for several years and claimed that he had promised to marry her. Later, when he refused marriage, she consumed poison and died. FIR was registered under Sections 417, 376 and 306 IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges, but the Karnataka High Court later convicted him under Sections 417 and 306 IPC for cheating and abetment of suicide.

What the Supreme Court Observed:

The Supreme Court carefully examined the dying declarations and found:

There was no allegation that the accused instigated or forced the deceased to commit suicide.
No evidence proved physical relations on false promise of marriage.
The deceased herself had gone to meet the accused carrying poison beforehand.
Mere refusal to marry cannot by itself amount to instigation for suicide.

The Court explained that for Section 306 IPC:

There must be “mens rea” (guilty intention).
There must be active instigation, provocation, or intentional aid for suicide.
A broken relationship or heartbreak alone is not sufficient for conviction.
Important Legal Principle:

The Court held that:

“Broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life” and unless there is direct provocation or intentional conduct pushing the victim toward suicide, Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked.

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and restored the Trial Court acquittal, giving complete relief to the accused.

Key Takeaway for Legal News Video:
Refusal to marry ≠ automatic abetment of suicide.
Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation and guilty intention.
Emotional heartbreak alone is insufficient for criminal conviction.

Supreme Court Judgement
Kamaruddin Dastgir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnatka
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012 date of Decision 29.11.2024
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/334

api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/2999/2999_2012_17…

api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/2999/2999_2012_17…

visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp, IMO, Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 3

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

गिरफ्तारी के समय आरोपी को गिरफ्तारी के कारण और आधार बताए जाएँ

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad की लखनऊ बेंच में दाखिल हैबियस कॉर्पस रिट याचिका संख्या 144/2026 में याचिकाकर्ता संतोष गुप्ता ने अपनी गिरफ्तारी, हिरासत और रिमांड आदेश को चुनौती दी थी। मामला थाना कोतवाली नगर, जनपद बलरामपुर में दर्ज अपराध संख्या 317/2025 से संबंधित था, जिसमें BNS की विभिन्न धाराएँ लगाई गई थीं।

हाईकोर्ट ने क्या कहा?

डिवीजन बेंच ने कहा कि यह मामला पहले दिए गए निर्णय Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. से पूरी तरह कवर होता है। इसके बाद कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट रूप से माना कि याचिकाकर्ता की गिरफ्तारी अवैध थी।

कोर्ट का बड़ा आदेश

हाईकोर्ट ने:

गिरफ्तारी को अवैध घोषित किया,
CJM बलरामपुर द्वारा पारित 10.04.2026 के रिमांड आदेश को रद्द कर दिया,
और आरोपी को तत्काल रिहा करने का आदेश दिया, यदि वह किसी अन्य मामले में वांछित न हो।

हालांकि कोर्ट ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि पुलिस कानून के अनुसार दोबारा कार्रवाई करने के लिए स्वतंत्र रहेगी।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का असर

सुनवाई के दौरान राज्य सरकार की ओर से बताया गया कि Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra के निर्णय के अनुपालन में उत्तर प्रदेश के पुलिस अधिकारियों को निर्देश जारी किए जा चुके हैं कि:

गिरफ्तारी के समय आरोपी को गिरफ्तारी के कारण और आधार बताए जाएँ,
तथा BNSS, 2023 के प्रावधानों का सख्ती से पालन किया जाए।
कानूनी महत्व

यह निर्णय स्पष्ट करता है कि:

✅ यदि गिरफ्तारी अवैध है, तो उसके आधार पर दिया गया रिमांड आदेश भी स्वतः अवैध हो जाएगा।
✅ पुलिस को गिरफ्तारी के कारण बताना अनिवार्य है।
✅ BNSS की प्रक्रिया का पालन न होने पर हाईकोर्ट हैबियस कॉर्पस के जरिए तत्काल राहत दे सकता है।

Find Judgement
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/331

Orginal judgement link from High Court official sites links
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloa…

visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 8

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Supreme Court’s Big Verdict on SC/ST Act Explained 🔥No “Public View”? No SC/ST Case, Says Supreme CourtSC/ST Act FIR Quashed by Supreme Court 🚨Supreme Court Clarifies “Public View” Under SC/ST ActInside House Abuse ≠ SC/ST Offence? Supreme Court ExplainsMajor SC/ST Act Judgment You Must Know ⚠️Supreme Court Cancels SC/ST Charges | Landmark JudgmentFamily Dispute + SC/ST Act = FIR Quashed by Supreme CourtSupreme Court on False SC/ST Cases? Important 2026 JudgmentSC/ST Act Explained in 60 Seconds ⏳ Supreme Court VerdictCriminal Intimidation Charge Also Quashed! Supreme CourtSupreme Court Sets New Standard in SC/ST Act CasesCan SC/ST Case Survive Without Public Witnesses?Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on SC/ST Act 2026
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under the SC/ST Act, holding that for offences related to caste-based insult or intimidation, the incident must occur in “public view.” Since the alleged abuse took place inside a house during a family/property dispute and no independent public witnesses were present, the Court ruled that the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out. Consequently, the SC/ST Act charges as well as the criminal intimidation allegations were set aside.
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/324
visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 4

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Act Like a Post Office While Granting Remand!

Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314

Case: Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: (2013) 1 SCC 314
Court: Supreme Court of India

Core Issue

The Supreme Court considered whether a Magistrate can mechanically authorize remand merely because the police produce remand papers before the Court.

Important Observation of the Supreme Court

The Court strongly held that:

A Magistrate is not a post office or a mere forwarding authority who simply puts a stamp on police remand papers.

The Magistrate must:

apply independent judicial mind,
examine whether remand is legally justified,
protect the personal liberty of the accused under Article 21,
and ensure that detention is not mechanical or arbitrary.
Key Principles Laid Down
Judicial Satisfaction is Mandatory
Before granting police or judicial custody, the Magistrate must carefully examine:
case diary,
allegations,
grounds of arrest,
necessity of further custody.
Mechanical Remand is Illegal
The Court warned against “rubber stamp” remand orders passed without proper reasoning.
Liberty of Accused is Important
Remand directly affects personal liberty; therefore, Magistrates must act cautiously and judicially.
Magistrate Must Record Reasons
Even brief reasons showing application of mind are necessary while authorizing detention.
Role of Magistrate is Protective, Not Formal
The Magistrate acts as a constitutional safeguard against illegal detention and police excesses.
Find Judgement
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/321
visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 6

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Arrest Without Reasons: Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹10 Lakh Cost on UP Govt, Pulls Up ACS (Home)
In a significant ruling reinforcing personal liberty, the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench has declared the arrest of a man illegal and ordered his immediate release, while also imposing ₹10 lakh compensation on the State for unlawful detention lasting more than three months.

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the detainee, who had been arrested on 27 January 2026 in connection with a criminal case registered in Unnao district. His counsel argued that the arrest violated constitutional safeguards because he was not properly informed of the grounds for his arrest. Instead, the arrest memo merely mentioned the case crime number without explaining the specific reasons or allegations justifying his detention.

After examining the record and relevant case law, the Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava found that this omission struck at the very root of the arrest. Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the Bench emphasized that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), closely linked with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the grounds must be meaningful, clear, and preferably communicated in writing so that the arrested person can effectively defend himself and seek legal remedies.

The judges observed that merely mentioning a case number does not satisfy this requirement, as it fails to inform the individual why he is being deprived of his liberty. In the absence of proper communication of grounds, the arrest was held to be unconstitutional and illegal. Consequently, the remand order passed by the Magistrate on the following day was also set aside. The Court reiterated the settled principle that if the initial arrest is illegal, any subsequent custody based on that arrest cannot be sustained.

The Court expressed serious concern over the conduct of the State authorities, noting that despite an earlier order highlighting these issues, the petitioner continued to remain in jail. It also criticized the response filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), observing that it failed to address the Court’s specific query regarding why exemplary costs should not be imposed. This, the Court remarked, reflected a lack of application of mind at the highest administrative level.

Taking into account the prolonged and unlawful deprivation of liberty, the Bench held that the case warranted not only release but also compensation. Relying on established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases dealing with illegal arrest and custodial violations, the Court awarded ₹10 lakh as exemplary costs to the petitioner. The amount is to be paid by the State within four weeks, with liberty granted to recover it from the erring officials responsible for the violation.

Allowing the petition, the Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. At the same time, it clarified that the authorities remain free to proceed against him in accordance with law, but strictly in compliance with constitutional and procedural safeguards.

The judgment serves as a strong reminder that the power of arrest must be exercised with caution and accountability, and that failure to follow basic constitutional requirements can render the entire process unlawful, exposing the State to judicial scrutiny and financial liability.
Find Original Judgement
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/316
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloa…

visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 7

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Can Police Arrest Without Written Grounds? SC Says NO!

Know Your Rights: Supreme Court on Grounds of Arrest

Victory for Personal Liberty! New SC Guidelines (2025)

The Supreme Court of India, in the lead case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, delivered a landmark judgment on November 6, 2025, regarding the fundamental right of an arrestee to be informed of the grounds of their arrest. Core Legal IssueThe central question was whether the police are mandated to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused in all cases, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to satisfy the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS (formerly Section 50 of the CrPC). Key Rulings & GuidelinesThe Court established the following mandatory procedures to be followed "henceforth" across India: Mandatory Written Communication: The constitutional mandate to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory for all offences under all statutes. Language Requirement: These grounds must be communicated in writing and in a language the arrestee understands. The "Two-Hour" Rule: In exceptional circumstances where written grounds cannot be given immediately (e.g., flagrant crimes), the police may inform the arrestee orally at first. However, the written grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time and at least two hours prior to producing the person before a Magistrate for remand. Purpose of the Delay: This two-hour window is intended to allow legal counsel enough time to scrutinize the basis of the arrest and effectively oppose remand or apply for bail. Consequence of Non-Compliance: Failure to adhere to these rules renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to be set at liberty. Context of the CaseThe case arose from a high-profile hit-and-run incident in Mumbai involving a BMW driven by Mihir Rajesh Shah. While the High Court had acknowledged a procedural lapse in providing written grounds, it originally upheld the arrest due to the "gravity of the offence". The Supreme Court used this appeal to settle the legal position for the entire country. Judicial ReasoningThe Court emphasized that arrest carries a significant social stigma and deeply impacts personal liberty. It ruled that merely reading out grounds (oral communication) is insufficient because an arrestee may not be in a calm state of mind to remember the details needed to consult a lawyer effectively.
Find Judgement
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/315
api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/56321/56321_2024_…

visit & contact detail
www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com
E-Mail ID
sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com
Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India
WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 9

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

petitioner Naushad filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions for issuance of his passport and completion of police verification in respect of Passport Application No. LK066459648625 dated 23.12.2025. The petitioner also prayed for expeditious action by the Regional Passport Office.
The State informed the Court that although a criminal case had allegedly been registered against the petitioner in the year 1983, no records relating to the said case were available and it could not be ascertained whether the case was still pending or not.
Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon’ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J. directed the concerned police authorities to submit a clear report to the Regional Passport Office within one week from the date of the order. The Court further directed that upon receipt of the clearance certificate, the passport authorities shall act in accordance with law and issue a fresh passport to the petitioner after completion of necessary formalities.
Passport can not be denied on the ground of non available of records in State Office.

visit & contact detail www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com E-Mail ID sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India WhatsApp Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786

Find judgement High Court Allahabad sitting at Lucknow, Writ C 3388 of 2026 Naushad Vs Union of India Order dt. 30.042026
t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/312
Official Website of High Court Allabad sitting at Lucknow
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloa…

3 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 9

Sajjad Husain Law Associates

1 month ago | [YT] | 12