Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28802 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1503 of 2025 Applicant :- Suhel Ahmad @ Suhel Mistry, Thru. His Son Shoib Ahmad Opposite Party :- Kanhai Prasad, Investigating Officer In Case Crime No.25/2025 Ps. Tulsipur, Balrampur And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Iqbal Ahmad Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing. 2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2156 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in F.I.R./Case Crime No.25 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 26, 41, 42, 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Sections 27, 29, 31, 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 registered at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur. He further submits that against the aforesaid F.I.R., a petition i.e. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2156 of 2025 was filed before this Court, in which, interim protection was granted on 24.03.2025 with the direction that the Police shall ensure strict compliance of provisions of Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 while conducting the investigation. He next submits that the Investigating Officer arrested the applicant on 25.03.2025 by adding Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., but there was no material for making out the offense u/s 316(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., hence, as respondent nos.1 and 2 violated the directions of this Court, they may be summoned and punished accordingly. 4. It is evident from the record that direction was given by the writ Court on 24.03.2025 in relation to the offense maximum punishable less than seven years. The remand order clearly reveals that the applicant was taken into custody in the crime in question, in which, evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer, thereafter, offense committed u/s 316(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. was also added. In such circumstances, this cannot be said that the Investigating Officer as well as learned Magistrate violated the directions of this Court. 5. With above observations, the contempt application being miconceived stands dismissed. 6. However, it is open to the applicant to take appropriate remedy, in case the Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. are added without any evidence, by moving an application before learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench