Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/992/2026 of SATISH ALIAS SHAPAD AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 30 May 2026
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. 992 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Devansh Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Bhaskar
2026:UHC:4307
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. 992 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. Devansh Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By the instant petition the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 18.05.2026 registered as Case Crime no. 0469 of 2026 under section 121(1), 190, 191(2), 221, 352 of Bhartiya Nyaaya Sanhita 2023 and 132 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Police Station Laksar District Haridwar. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in F.I.R. dated 18.05.2026 registered as Case Crime no. 0469 of 2026 under section 121(1), 190, 191(2), 221, 352 of Bhartiya Nyaaya Sanhita 2023 and 132 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Police Station Laksar District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.) 30.05.2026 PR
2026:UHC:4307