Allahabad High Court
AMARDEEP AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed the authorities to ensure that any arrest of the petitioners be carried out in accordance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.
Summary
Amardeep and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 25 July 2026 under several sections of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act, and seeking a mandamus to prevent their arrest. The petitioners also made an innocuous prayer that the police 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. The High Court, after hearing counsel, 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. The petition was disposed with this direction, without ordering the quashment of the FIR.
Issues considered
- Whether the police must follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar in the present case
- Whether a direction under mandamus can be issued to prevent arrest of the petitioners pending compliance with those guidelines
Legislation cited
Subjects
- FIR quash
- arrest procedure
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- POCSO Act
- B.N.S.
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23471 of 2026
Amardeep And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pushpraj 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 following main
reliefs:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned First Information Report dated 25.07.2026 as Case crime
No.0154 of 2026, under Sections 74, 352, 351(3), 137(2) of B.N.S. and
Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pahari, District Chitrakoot
(Annexure no.1 to the writ petition);
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent nos.2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioners in First Information
Report dated 25.07.2026 as Case Crime No.0154 of 2026, under Sections
74, 352, 351(3), 137(2) of B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Pahari, District Chitrakoot."
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 the State
vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
CRLP No. 23471 of 2026
2
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.
Rizwan Ahmad, 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.
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…