Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

BHAGWAN SHARAN SHAU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court did not quash the FIR but directed the police to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act, thereby disposing the petition.

Summary

Petitioners Bhagwan Sharan Shau and another filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 23.08.2026 under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the IPC and a mandamus restraining their arrest. The petitioners later made an innocuous prayer that the police follow the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrest procedures. The State opposed the merits of the petition but did not object to the innocuous prayer. The Court, noting the lack of objection, allowed the innocuous prayer and directed the authorities to ensure arrests are made in compliance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act. The writ petition was disposed with these directions, without quashing the FIR.

Issues considered

  • Whether the FIR under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the IPC can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the arrest of the petitioners.
  • Whether the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar are applicable to the present arrest proceedings.
  • Whether Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act governs the arrest procedure in this case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • writ petition
  • FIR quash
  • mandamus
  • arrest guidelines
  • Arnesh Kumar
  • Section 35(3)
  • Indian Penal Code
  • High Court

Judgment

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24041 of 2026

Bhagwan Sharan Shau And Another
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            :   Ranjit Kumar Gautam, Vinay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 48
                   HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
                   HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash the
alleged First Information Report Dated 23.08.2026 in Case crime no. 0393 of
2026 Under section 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. Police Station Sipari Bazzar
District-Jhansi.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2 not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuant to the
first information report dated 23.08.2026 in Case crime no. 0393 of 2026
Under section 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. Police Station Sipari Bazzar District-
Jhansi."

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 Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned A.G.A.
appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
                                                                                          CRLP No. 24041 of 2026
                                                                 2


                                    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.

                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Saurabh
                                                                     (Abdul Shahid,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.