Latest news with #JusticeSiddharth
News18
01-07-2025
- News18
Live-In Relationships Go Against Women's Interest, Says Allahabad HC
The court said the reality is that a man can easily marry after a live-in-relationship, but it is difficult for the woman to find a life partner after a breakup The Allahabad High Court recently remarked that although the concept of live-in relationships has been legalised by the Apex court, the ground reality in Indian middle-class society remains starkly different, with such relationships often clashing with settled societal norms and disproportionately harming women. The court stated it was 'fed up" with such cases repeatedly coming before it, noting that while the younger generation may be attracted to live-in relationships, their 'after-affects" are now routinely playing out before the courts. 'A man can marry, even after a live-in-relationship, a woman or a number of women, but it is difficult for the woman to find a life partner after a breakup," Justice Siddharth observed. The court was hearing a bail application filed by one Shane Alam, who was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act for allegedly engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman after promising to marry her. According to the prosecution, the woman had accompanied Alam to multiple locations during the course of their relationship, but he later reneged on the promise of marriage. The court, while considering Alam's bail application, noted that he had been in custody since February 22, 2025, and had no prior criminal record. Opposing the bail, the counsel for the informant argued that the act had destroyed the future prospects of the woman, who now faced social stigma and difficulty in finding a life partner. Justice Siddharth, while dealing with the case at hand, took a broader view of the societal implications of such cases. 'After live-in-relationship was legalised by the Apex court, the court had fed up such cases. These cases are coming to the court because the concept of live-in relationship is against the settled law in the Indian middle-class society," the judge observed. He further noted the gendered consequences of such relationships. He added that while live-in relationships may appeal to the younger generation, their aftermath is evident in cases like the present one. However, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, among other factors and citing constitutional protections under Article 21 and precedents such as Dataram Singh v. State of UP and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court concluded that Alam had made out a case for bail, especially in light of prison overcrowding. Accordingly, the bail was granted on strict conditions, including that the accused shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, must appear before the trial court on key dates, and cooperate with the trial proceedings.
News18
01-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Anti-National Acts Routine Due To Lenient Courts': Allahabad HC Denies Bail For Pro-Pakistan Post
Last Updated: Ansar Ahmad Siddique had shared a video on Facebook on May 3, 2025, glorifying 'Pakistan Zindabad' and appealing to others to support Pakistanis. In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court on June 26, 2025, refused to grant bail to a 62-year-old man accused of sharing a Facebook video allegedly promoting anti-national sentiments, stating that courts in India have become 'liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with anti-national bent of mind". The bench of Justice Siddharth, presiding over the bail plea of accused Ansar Ahmad Siddique in a case registered under Sections 197 and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), said that the conduct of the applicant amounted to an affront to the Constitution and national integrity. The FIR, registered at Chhatari Police Station in Bulandshahar district, alleged that Siddique had shared a video on Facebook on May 3, 2025, glorifying 'Pakistan Zindabad" and appealing to others to support Pakistanis. The prosecution further argued that this post came shortly after a terror attack in Pahalgam, where 26 Hindu men were killed, implying the applicant's sympathy towards terror acts motivated by religious extremism. Court observed that such acts not only hurt national sentiments but also threatened the sovereignty and unity of the country. Quoting Article 51-A of the Constitution, Justice Siddharth said every citizen is duty-bound to uphold the nation's integrity, its flag, anthem, and constitutional values. 'Clearly the act of the applicant is disrespectful to the Constitution and its ideals and also his act amounts to challenging the sovereignty of India and adversely affecting unity and integrity of India by sharing anti-social and anti-Indian post," the judge stated. Issuing a warning on the increasing frequency of such incidents, the court remarked, 'Commission of such offences is becoming routine affair in this country because the courts are liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with anti national bent of mind. It is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage". With these observations, the high court dismissed Siddique's bail plea and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings under Section 346 of the BNSS and Section 309 of the CrPC. First Published:
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC denies bail to man accused of sharing ‘Pakistan zindabad' post
PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court recently denied bail to a 62-year-old man accused of sharing a facebook post that stated 'Pakistan zindabad'. The court said his anti-national conduct does not entitle him to seek protection of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is a senior citizen and his age shows that he is born in independent India. His irresponsible and anti national conduct does not entitle him to seek protection of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court added. (File Photo) Rejecting the bail of one Ansar Ahmad Siddique, Justice Siddharth said: 'Commission of such offences is becoming a routine affair in this country because the courts are liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with an anti national bent of mind. It is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.' 'Clearly the act of the applicant is disrespectful to the Constitution and its ideals and also his act amounts to challenging the sovereignty of India and adversely affecting unity and integrity to India by sharing anti-social and anti Indian post. The applicant is a senior citizen and his age shows that he is born in independent India. His irresponsible and anti national conduct does not entitle him to seek protection of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,' the court added. The bail application was filed by one Ansar Ahmad Siddique, with a request to release him on bail in case no 196 of 2025 under sections 197 (acts that undermine national integration), 152 (acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at police station – Chhatari Bulandshahr during pendency of trial. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had only shared a video on facebook on May 3, 2025. 'He is an old man, aged about 62 years and undergoing medical treatment,' he added. On the other hand, the state government's counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that the conduct of the applicant was against the interest of the country and applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the video was posted after J&K carnage of 26 people, and therefore, it clearly proved that the applicant supported the terrorists' act on religious grounds. After hearing the contentions, the court in its order dated June 26 rejected the bail application mentioning that as per Article 51-A(a), it is the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem and as per sub clause (c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. According to the FIR, applicant shared a post on social media platform of facebook wherein an appeal was made for propagating jihad, saying 'Pakistan Zindabad' and appealing to his brothers to support Pakistani brothers.
Time of India
27-06-2025
- Time of India
Live-in relationships againstIndian middle class norms: HC
Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has observed that live-in relationships are against the values held by Indian middle-class society. A single-judge bench of Justice Siddharth made this observation while granting bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the false promise of marriage. Passing the order on June 24, the bench expressed displeasure at the growing number of such cases reaching the courts. "After live-in-relationship has been legalized by the apex court, such cases are coming to the court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian middle class society," the bench said. The court further said live-in relationships disproportionately harm women, while men move on and even marry after such relationships end; it is difficult for women to find a life partner after a breakup. The court made these observations while dealing with the bail plea of accused Shane Alam, who had been booked under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Pocso Act for engaging in a physical relationship with a woman on the false assurance of marriage and later refusing to marry her. As per counsel for the applicant, there is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of rape of the woman on false promise of marriage. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cuối cùng, chơi miễn phí game chiến thuật hay nhất 2025! Sea of Conquest Phát ngay Undo She had gone with the applicant to a number of places but it was alleged that the applicant had refused to marry her. The woman's lawyer argued that the accused's actions had "ruined the woman's entire life" and that "no one would be willing to marry her now." After taking note of these arguments, the court observed that live-in relationships have had the "greatest impact on the younger generation" and that their "adverse consequences are evident in existing cases like the present one. The court, however, granted bail to the accused on the ground that he has been in jail since Feb 22 this year and had criminal history.
