Allahabad High Court
KESHRI HIND AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed the authorities to follow the Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners Keshri Hind and six others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 19‑08‑2026 (Crime No.0253 of 2026) registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S.S. Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, and also requested that they not be arrested. The petitioners prayed that, if arrest were contemplated, the police must follow the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The State opposed the merits of the petition but did not object to the innocuous prayer regarding arrest procedure. The Court, noting the lack of objection to the innocuous prayer, allowed it and disposed of the writ petition, directing the authorities to ensure that any arrest complies with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 19‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioners.
- Whether the police must follow the arrest guidelines prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar while arresting the petitioners.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 35(3)
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- arrest guidelines
- Arnesh Kumar case
- Section 35(3)
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22250 of 2026
Keshri Hind And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Prasad Yadav
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 19.08.2026 in Case Crime
No.0253 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351 (2) of BNS and Section
3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur 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. Rizwan Ahmad, 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. 22250 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 16, 2026
C. MANI
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRAMANI VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…