Allahabad High Court
CRLP/21681/2026 of DR. NIDHI GUPTA SAXENA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21681 of 2026 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 13.08.2026 in Case Crime No.0434
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21681 of 2026
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 13.08.2026 in Case Crime No.0434 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 336, 340(2), 125 BNS and Section 23, 18 of Pre-Netal Diagnostic Technique (Regulation & Preve of Misuse) Act 1994, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners after some length of arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the petitioners police may be directed to follow the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions and prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and no objection by learned A.G.A. on innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dr. Nidhi Gupta Saxena And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and provision of Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. October 9, 2026 SK Srivastava CRLP No. 21681 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad