Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/1445/2026 of VISHAL KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 July 2026

Cites 1, Cited by 0

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1445/2026 Vishal Kumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPCRL/1445/2026

Vishal Kumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report/Case Crime No. 0033 of 2026, registered under Sections 318(4) of the B.N.S., at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner has further sought issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged on wholly false, fabricated, and concocted allegations, motivated by an ulterior intent to harass the petitioner; that, the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the FIR has been registered merely to pressurize the petitioner with undue demands; that, other co-accused persons have already been granted interim protection vide order dated 03.07.2026.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years; that, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation and assures appearance before the Investigating Officer whenever required.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and submits that that the offence alleged in the impugned F.I.R. i.e. under Section 318(4) B.N.S. is punishable with imprisonment which does not exceed seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the present criminal writ petition be disposed of in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, with a direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the statutory safeguards governing arrest and investigation.

7. Learned State Counsel would oppose the writ petition and would submit that the notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. has been issued to the petitioner. However, he does not dispute the fact that the offence alleged in the impugned F.I.R. is punishable with imprisonment which does not exceed seven years.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage, particularly when the investigation is still in progress. It is, however, not disputed that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment which does not exceed seven years.

9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law as well as the guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner

10. It is clarified that in the event the Investigating Officer forms an opinion that arrest of the petitioner is necessary, the statutory requirements prescribed under law shall be complied with in letter and spirit.

11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

27.07.2026 Mamta

MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900b f09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd 004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.28 11:25:16 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead