Allahabad High Court
HONEY RAI @ PRAFUL RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed that the police must adhere to the arrest guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., and disposed of the petition with that direction.
Summary
Honey Rai @ Praful Rai filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking the quash of an FIR dated 11‑09‑2026 under Sections 318(4), 317(5) and 112(2) of the B.N.S., and a mandamus directing that he not be arrested while the petition is pending. The petitioner’s counsel made an innocuous prayer that the police follow the arrest guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The State opposed the merits of the petition but raised no objection to the innocuous prayer. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, allowed the innocuous prayer and directed the authorities to comply with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. 5. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the said direction. No order was passed on the substantive request to quash the FIR or to issue a mandamus against arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether the police must be directed to follow the arrest procedure prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar during the pendency of the writ petition
- Whether the court can entertain an innocuous prayer without deciding on the merits of quashing the FIR
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 112(2), 317(5), 318(4), 35(3)
Subjects
- arrest procedure
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- Section 35(3)
- B.N.S.
- quash FIR
- mandamus
- writ petition
- certiorari
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23456 of 2026
Honey Rai @ Praful Rai
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhriguram Ji, Deo Brat Pandey,
Prabhat 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 following main
reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned First Information Report dated 11/09/2026, Case Crime
No.0259/2026, under Sections 318(4), 317(5), 112(2) B.N.S., P.S.
Kotwali, District Jhansi.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner during pendency of the
writ petition."
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, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the 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, Mr. R.K.
Gupta, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the
record.
CRLP No. 23456 of 2026
2
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.
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 28, 2026
Atul
Digitally signed by :-
ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…