Allahabad HC Tells UP DMs Not to Seek Arbitrary Bonds From Tractor-Owning Farmers
The government s counsel said these personal bonds, of between Rs 50,000 and Rs 10 lakh, had been withdrawn.
Allahabad high court. Photo: allahabadhighcourt.in
Law03/Feb/2021
New Delhi: The Allahabad high court on Tuesday asked the Uttar Pradesh government to stop various district administrations in the state from seeking personal bonds with exorbitant sums from tractor-owning farmers, including women, to prevent them from participating in the protest against the central farm laws.
A Lucknow bench issued the order on Additional Advocate General V.K. Sahi’s oral undertaking to the court that he would convey to the government to stop district magistrates and sub-divisional magistrates from demanding personal bonds with hefty amounts from farmers. “…âthere is no further apprehension to breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility,â the law officer told the court, while agreei
They were sought allegedly to prevent them from participating in farm protests
The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Sitapur district administration in Uttar Pradesh on the “exorbitant” amount of personal bonds and sureties asked of farmers, allegedly to prevent them from participating in the ongoing farm protests.
A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh sought the reply on a PIL plea filed by Lucknow-based social activist Arundhati Dhuru.
Ms. Dhuru said in the petition that SDMs (Sub-Divisional Magistrates) in various districts of the State, including Sitapur, had issued notices to thousands of farmers under Section 111 of the CrPC. The farmers were informed that the police suspected that they may get involved in the ongoing farmers protest and commit breach of peace.
Allahabad HC questions personal bonds sought from farmers
By IANS |
Published on
Wed, Jan 27 2021 18:03 IST |
0 Views
Lucknow, Jan 27 : The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the district administration in Uttar Pradesh s Sitapur on the exorbitant amount of personal bonds and sureties sought from farmers, to prevent them from participating in the ongoing farm protests.
A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajeev Singh sought the reply on a PIL plea filed by Lucknow-based social activist Arundhati Dhuru.
Dhuru said in the petition that Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) in various districts of the state, including Sitapur, had issued notices to thousands of farmers under Section 111 of the CrPC. The farmers were informed that the police suspected that they may get involved in the ongoing farmers protest and commit breach of peace.
A Division Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed that a High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power to grant bail in a suitable case. In an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers [to grant bail]
on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power, it observed while granting bail to Arnab Goswami in a habeas corpus petition.