Allahabad High Court
CRLP/23079/2026 of PRAMOD AND 5 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23079 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 26.08.2026 in Case Crime No.189 of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23079 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 26.08.2026 in Case Crime No.189 of 2026, under Sections 304 (2), 190, 191 (2), 316 (2), 115 (2), 351 (3) of BNS, at Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad 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, Mr. K.P. Pathak, 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, 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 inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Pramod And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
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 C. MANI CRLP No. 23079 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad