Search the cases we're tracking — try a natural query like “murder cases in Maharashtra”.
18 cases
The Allahabad High Court is hearing a contempt matter concerning the failure of police to execute a non-bailable warrant in a kidnapping case. While one accused, Anup Yadav, was arrested on 20 October 2026, the court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police of Meerut to remain in the courtroom on 26 October 2026 due to the ongoing failure to produce the required individuals.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that electricity, as a component of the right to a dignified life under Article 21, cannot be denied solely due to a pending property ownership dispute. The court directed that an application for a new connection in Rae Bareli be processed based on proof of occupancy and an indemnity declaration, quashing a previous rejection order.
The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had granted probation to two convicts in a 2003 attack case involving Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran criticized the lower court for showing misplaced sympathy in such a serious matter. Following the decision on 13 October 2026, the Supreme Court directed the convicts to surrender as reported on 22 October 2026.
The Allahabad High Court has issued a directive to all family courts in Uttar Pradesh, mandating that execution petitions regarding maintenance must be disposed of within six months. This order was issued while the court dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a man challenging a lower court's maintenance order.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the murder convictions of two individuals for an offence committed in 1980 in Sultanpur. The Court set aside their life sentences after determining that both convicts were juveniles at the time of the offence, remitting the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings.
On 15 October 2026, the Allahabad High Court directed the State Election Commission to conduct Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat elections within three months, maintaining existing reservation arrangements. Following this decision, the Rashtriya Gram Pradhan Sangathan announced on 16 October 2026 its intention to challenge the directive in the Supreme Court, citing logistical constraints.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Christian Community Welfare Society seeking the conversion of barren land in Ghaziabad into a cemetery. The court ruled that the right to freedom of religion does not include the right to claim a specific plot of land for the purpose of a cemetery.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a complainant's dissatisfaction with a police investigation or the omission of certain provisions under the SC/ST Act, 1989, does not constitute sufficient grounds to prosecute police officers for willful neglect under Section 4 of the Act. The Court further held that an administrative inquiry and recommendation are mandatory prerequisites before initiating penal proceedings against public servants under this section.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that an individual alleged to be a paramour in a matrimonial maintenance case must be granted an opportunity to be heard before any adverse judicial determination is made against them regarding adultery. The court also clarified that while Section 14 of the Family Courts Act allows for the admission of electronic evidence, it does not automatically establish its authenticity or evidentiary value.
The Allahabad High Court ruled on 12 October 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission cannot exclude candidates from recruitment processes due to postal transit delays if the application was dispatched within the prescribed timeframe. Following this judgment, the Court directed the Commission on 14 October 2026 to accept a specific candidate's hard copy application by 16 October 2026 for recruitment in the medical education department.
On 02 September 2026, the Allahabad High Court quashed the National Security Act detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary, labeling the case concocted and ordering compensation for the accused. While the Uttar Pradesh government challenged this order in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court clarified on 23 September 2026 that the quashing of the detention stands, staying only the penalty imposed on the Noida District Magistrate.
A case involving allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with disputes over relief disbursement to victims. The Allahabad High Court directed a state-wide probe into repeated claims and misuse of relief funds, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court for lack of reasoning in the order.
Altaf, a 22-year-old man, died while in the custody of the Kasganj police in Uttar Pradesh following his detention in connection with a kidnapping investigation. On 2 September 2026, the Allahabad High Court held the state government strictly liable for the unnatural death and ordered it to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation to his legal heirs within three weeks.
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) against Krishna Pal and others. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that dacoity was the primary intention and that murder was committed in the course of dacoity.
An Allahabad High Court case involving three accused in a 35-year-old dowry death matter. The court held that to sustain conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that police cannot interfere in purely civil property disputes and should only intervene to maintain public order. The court warned that deviations from this principle may invite departmental and contempt proceedings.
An Allahabad High Court granted bail to Abid, who was convicted in 2005 for the murder of BSP MLA Raju Pal. The bail was granted while Abid's appeal against conviction is pending, with the sentence suspended.
The Allahabad High Court ordered the removal of hoardings displaying personal details of individuals allegedly involved in protests, observing that the police and executive lacked the legal power for such public exhibitions. As reported on 13 March 2020, the Supreme Court heard the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against this order and observed that no law currently supports the state's action of displaying such personal details.
Looking for a specific case? Describe the event and we'll verify it against trusted sources.
