Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1024/2026 of UMAKANT SAINI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 3 June 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1024 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vinay Bisht and Mr. Pavan Kuamr Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr.
SL.
No
Date
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPCRL No. 1024 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, 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. Mr. Vinay Bisht and Mr. Pavan Kuamr Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. By the instant petition the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside FIR No. 0110 of 2026, dated 07.05.2026, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand, under sections 318(4), 351(3) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, filed by respondents no. 3, 4 and 5, together with all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, in so far as they relate to the petitioners (Accused Nos. 4 and 5) (Annexure No. 1, pages 17-29). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid FIR; and/or iii. Issue a writ, order or direction restraining respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 their officers and subordinates, from illegally detaining, harassing or otherwise interfering with the liberty of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR otherwise than in strict accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences as alleged in the FIR against the petitioners are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, I.O. should follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
5. Learned State counsel have no objection on this and also submits that the offences as alleged are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the I.O. concerned is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines formulated in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
6. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the I.O. concerned to follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and issue appropriate notices while conducting the investigation.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2026 PR