Allahabad High Court
MOHD ANSAR AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court disposed the petition, directing the authorities to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. for any arrest, without quashing the FIR.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd Ansar Ahmad, filed a writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 26-11-2025 under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S.S. and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and also requested that the police not arrest him. The petitioner’s counsel prayed that, if arrest were contemplated, the police should follow the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The State opposed the petition on its merits but did not object to the innocuous prayer regarding arrest procedure. The Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the innocuous prayer and directed the authorities to ensure that any arrest complies with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. The petition was therefore disposed with the said direction, without quashing the FIR.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 26-11-2025 under Section 318(4) B.N.S.S. and Section 66D IT Act can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction that the police follow the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar before making an arrest.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 318(4), 35(3)
- Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — s. 66D
Subjects
- quash FIR
- arrest procedure
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- Section 66D IT Act
- criminal writ petition
- Section 35(3) B.N.S.S.
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21355 of 2026
Mohd Ansar Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jamil Ahmad Ansari, Sunil Kumar
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 26.11.2025 in Case Crime
No.0102 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4) of BNS and Section 66D of
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Narval,
District Kanpur Nagar and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the
petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner after some length of
arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the
petitioner 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 petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, 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 petitioner and no objection by learned A.G.A. on innocuous
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to allow
the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
CRLP No. 21355 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…