CRLP/11558/2025 of KUNAL SINGH THRU. NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 4 OTHERS on 10 December 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 to 4.

2. In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party no.5 is hereby dispensed with.

3. This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. dated 18.01.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 9 of 2025, under Sections 309(4) and 140(3) including the added Sections 310(2) and 317(3) in place of Section 309(4) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Naka Hindola, District- Lucknow.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the FIR has only been lodged against unknown persons but subsequently with four other persons having been arrested the name of the petitioner has emerged.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 105 of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with while arresting the others and therefore the petitioner cannot be arrested.

6. The aforesaid ground is found to be patently fallacious. The reason is not far to seek. In case others have been arrested and compliance of Section 105 of BNSS 2023 has not been made, the same may be a good ground for them to raise a challenge to their arrest but it cannot be made a ground by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. Thus, the said ground is rejected.

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others-2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170 has held that in case Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kunal Singh Thru. Natural Guardian Father Krishna Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

the FIR itself is not capable of being quashed there cannot be any occasion for the High Court granting any indulgence to the petitioner.

8. Once from perusal of the FIR an offence has been made out consequently there cannot be any occasion of granting any indulgence to the petitioner.

9. For the sake of convenience, relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra) is reproduced below:- "6. The High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR and yet granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons, i.e., the private respondents herein, till after filing of the charge sheet which, in our opinion, has caused a grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. There is neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.

7. It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible as has been held by this Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401. "22. As observed by this Court in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P.[Hema Mishra vs. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363], though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438CrPC proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps" cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner. CRLP No. 11558 of 2025

23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" till the final report/charge-sheet is filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible." [Emphasis supplied]

10. Even otherwise, the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would patently tantamount to going into the merits of the case by holding a mini trial which has been restrained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. December 10, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 11558 of 2025

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench