This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
This post summarises notable orders and judgments from the Allahabad High Court (including the Lucknow Bench) from late February to early March 2026, sourced from published reports.
1. Right to Choose a Partner — Interfaith Relationships
Noori And Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Facts: Two individuals in an interfaith relationship approached the court seeking protection after facing interference from state authorities. The petitioners contended that their relationship was voluntary and that no unlawful religious conversion had occurred or was contemplated.
Holding: The court held that the right to choose a life partner is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of the religion professed by the parties. The UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not prohibit interfaith relationships or marriages where no unlawful conversion is involved. The court observed: “Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life.”
Takeaway: Authorities cannot invoke the UP Conversion Act to obstruct a voluntary interfaith relationship absent evidence of an unlawful conversion; the Act targets coerced conversion, not consensual cohabitation.
Provisions: Article 21, Constitution of India; UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
2. Acquittal After 23 Years — Insufficient Prosecution Evidence
Raees v. State of UP — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Facts: The appellant had been convicted of murder and remained in custody for approximately 23 years. On appeal, the Division Bench undertook a fresh examination of the prosecution’s evidence.
Holding: The court acquitted the appellant after finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The bench described the prolonged incarceration followed by acquittal as “a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system,” underscoring a systemic failure to identify evidentiary weakness at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
Takeaway: An appellate court must independently assess the sufficiency of prosecution evidence and, where that evidence does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is required to acquit regardless of how long the accused has already served.
3. Section 183 BNSS — Fresh Statement Recording
Kirti Verma v. State of UP — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Facts: The petitioner sought fresh recording of a statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in circumstances where the original statement had already been recorded during the investigation.
Holding: The court held that fresh recording of a statement under Section 183 BNSS before a Magistrate is not a matter of course and should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Allowing routine re-recording would undermine the integrity of the testimonial process and create scope for misuse.
Takeaway: Section 183 BNSS does not confer an unqualified right to have a statement re-recorded; a Magistrate must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist before ordering a fresh statement and cannot treat re-recording as a procedural formality.
Provisions: Section 183, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. Simultaneous Recovery and Arrest Warrants — Maintenance Arrears
Mohammad Shahzad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Bench: Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Facts: The petitioner challenged the practice of courts issuing warrants for recovery of maintenance arrears simultaneously with warrants of arrest, treating non-payment as a criminal default warranting immediate detention.
Holding: The court held that issuing recovery and arrest warrants simultaneously for maintenance arrears is unlawful and inhumane. Courts must first exhaust civil recovery mechanisms before resorting to coercive arrest; the dignity and personal liberty of a maintenance defaulter cannot be curtailed as a first resort.
Takeaway: A warrant of arrest in maintenance execution proceedings is a measure of last resort, not a default remedy; courts must demonstrate that recovery measures have been attempted and failed before ordering the detention of a maintenance defaulter.
5. Double Murder Conviction Upheld — Parents Convicted
Seema Gupta v. State of U.P. — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Bench: Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi (March 1, 2026)
Facts: In August 2014, the appellants — parents of a 15-year-old girl — discovered that their daughter was carrying a 25-week pregnancy. The father blamed a 28-year-old tenant residing on the property. By the following morning, both the daughter and the tenant were found strangled inside a room on the family’s premises.
Holding: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstantial evidence — including motive, last-seen evidence, the accused’s exclusive access to the room, and the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act — cumulatively established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances was held to be complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Takeaway: In a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act requires the accused to explain facts peculiarly within their knowledge; failure to offer any explanation can supply the final link completing the circumstantial chain.
Provisions: Sections 302/34, IPC; Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6. SC/ST Act — Referring to Profession Without Intent to Humiliate
Harshit @ Honey v. State of U.P. and Another — 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X (March 2, 2026)
Facts: The petitioner was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after allegedly addressing the complainant by a reference to the complainant’s profession during an altercation. The petitioner challenged the SC/ST Act charges, contending that the words used did not amount to intentional humiliation on the basis of caste identity.
Holding: The court held that merely referring to a person’s profession does not attract the SC/ST Act unless the words are intentionally used with the purpose of humiliating the victim on account of their caste. The court quashed charges under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act for want of the requisite intent, while permitting the IPC charges under Sections 323, 504, and 506 to continue.
Takeaway: The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires proof that caste-based language was intentionally directed at humiliating the victim on account of their scheduled caste or tribe identity; a reference to profession that is not so directed does not satisfy the mens rea requirement under Section 3(1)(Da) or 3(1)(Dha).
Provisions: SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha); IPC Sections 323, 504, 506.
7. Supreme Court Transfers Cases from Allahabad HC — 6-Year Delay
Jaideep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors. — Criminal Revision Nos. 1678, 1874, and 1900 of 2012
Bench (Supreme Court): Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (March 5, 2026)
Facts: Three criminal revision petitions arising from a 1994 incident had been pending before the Allahabad High Court since 2012. Judgment was reserved on 5 February 2020, but no verdict was pronounced for approximately six years thereafter, leaving the petitioner without resolution.
Holding: The Supreme Court invoked Article 139A of the Constitution to withdraw and transfer all three petitions to itself. The court observed that “the continued pendency of these petitions has a direct bearing on the petitioner’s denial of speedy justice,” holding that the extraordinary delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment warranted exercise of the transfer jurisdiction.
Takeaway: Article 139A empowers the Supreme Court to withdraw cases from a High Court not only to resolve conflicting decisions but also to prevent a manifest denial of the constitutional right to speedy justice where a reserved judgment remains unpronounced for an unreasonable period.
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — Allahabad High Court Updates
- Allahabad High Court — Official Website
- eLegalix — Allahabad HC Judgment Information System
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.