Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1008/2026 of SUBODH PARASHAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 2 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1008 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL No. 1008 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. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.05.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 95 of 2026 under Section 115(2), 191(2), 324(4), 333, 351(2) of BNS 2023 police station Rajpur District Dehradun
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No. 95 of 2026 under Section 115(2), 191(2) 324(4), 333, 351(2) of BNS 2023 police station Rajpur District Dehradun (Annexure No. 1 Page no. 17-29) till the pendency of present petition.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences in which the petitioners have been implicated are punishable up to seven years, however, there is still an apprehension of arrest since the petitioners have not received any notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023. He submits that the concerned I.O. while conducting the investigation is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 while conducting the investigation.
5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State have not disputed that the offences, as alleged, are punishable upto seven years, therefore, the I.O. is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
6. In view of the submissions, as advanced above, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned I.O. to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) while conducting the investigation and issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS as and when it requires.
7. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.06.2026 Parul