Allahabad High Court
RAM KHELAWAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must comply with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., and disposed the petition accordingly.
Summary
Petitioners Ram Khelawan and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR dated 23‑06‑2026 and a direction that they not be arrested. They requested the police to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrests. The State opposed the merits of the petition but did not object to the innocuous prayer concerning arrest procedures. The High Court, noting the lack of objection to the prayer, allowed the request and directed the authorities to adhere to the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. The petition was disposed with this direction.
Issues considered
- What procedural safeguards must be observed before arresting the petitioners under the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar?
- Whether the FIR dated 23‑06‑2026 can be quashed on the merits (though the court did not decide on this issue).
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 35(3)
Subjects
- arrest procedure
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- FIR quashment
- criminal writ petition
- Section 35(3)
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21345 of 2026
Ram Khelawan And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Rang Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned First Information Report dated 23.06.2026 in Case Crime
No.0233 of 2026, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 324 (4) of BNS
Police Station Soraon District Prayagraj and for a direction to the
respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First
Information Report.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners after some length of
arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the
petitioners police may be directed to follow the principle laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State
vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned
A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions and prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioners and no objection by learned A.G.A. on innocuous
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are inclined to allow
the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
CRLP No. 21345 of 2026
2
6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities
concerned to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the
Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and provision of Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 8, 2026
C. MANI
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRAMANI VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…