Allahabad High Court
MOHD. SALEEM @ PAPPU SHAH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed that the arrest procedure must adhere to the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act, and disposed of the petition with that direction.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR dated 07.08.2026 that alleged offences under various sections of the IPC, the Bihar Narcotic Substances (B.N.S.) Act and the Scheduled Castes/Tribes Act. They made an innocuous prayer that the police, before making any arrests, 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 merits but did not object to the innocuous prayer. The Court, noting the lack of objection to the prayer, allowed it 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. Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the arrest of the petitioners must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the basis of procedural irregularities in the arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 147, 323, 504, 506
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 35(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes/Tribes Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- arrest guidelines
- Arnesh Kumar case
- FIR quash
- high court writ petition
- Section 35(3) B.N.S.S.
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23250 of 2026
Mohd. Saleem @ Pappu Shah And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash
the impugned First Information Report dated 07.08.2026, registered as
Case Crime No. 90 of 2026, under sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3)
B.N.S. (under section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.) and section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Unj, District Bhadohi.
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, 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, Mr.
Shrawan Kumar Ojha, 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. 23250 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.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
October 1, 2026
K.K. Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…