Allahabad High Court
CRLP/21559/2026 of SANDEEP Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 8 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21559 of 2026 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 09.03.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 51 of 2026,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21559 of 2026
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, 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. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 09.03.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 51 of 2026, under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of B.N.S, Police Station Nawabganj, District - Farrukhabad and a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report.
2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that a cognizable offence has been made out and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned first information report.
4. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.
5. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. September 9, 2026 vijay krishna Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Sandeep .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad