Allahabad High Court
CRLP/21975/2026 of AMITABH MISHRA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 5 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21975 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 08.01.2026 in Case Crime No. 07 of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21975 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 08.01.2026 in Case Crime No. 07 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Fatehgarh and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner after some length of arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the petitioner police may be directed to follow the principles 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 opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard Mr. D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Rathi, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Amitabh Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. Taking into consideration the submissions and innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and no objection by learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents, we are inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 6, 2026 Prajapati RK CRLP No. 21975 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad