Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37718-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5882 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramjanki And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers :- "I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report so far as the same relates to the petitioner lodged by the informant/opposite party no.4 at Police Station- Mohammadpur Khala District Barabanki having F.I.R. No.0305 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act (which is contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition). II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to harass the petitioners and make attempts to arrest them and raid their house." 3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a widow and petitioner no.2 is a student of Class VIII. Although he is above 18 years of age, his name was merely mentioned in the F.I.R., which was initially lodged against only seven persons. Subsequently, based on the statements of villagers and the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the number of accused persons rose to 17, out of whom at least 15 have been arrested and sent to jail by the police. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners had no involvement whatsoever in the death of the informant’s nephew. 4. Learned A.G.A. has produced before this Court instructions wherein it has been stated that the F.I.R. was initially registered against seven named and some unnamed accused. The statement was given by Pravesh Maurya, S/o Ramsevek Maurya, who was the Gram Pradhan, and in lieu thereof, certain persons were named against whom it was said that there is camera footage on the mobile of the Gram Pradhan. The seven accused, as well as nine other persons, were named by the Gram Pradhan. The mobile footage has been saved in a pen drive by the Investigating Officer. From the names as are mentioned by the Gram Pradhan, it is not clear as to the role of the petitioners, although their names have been mentioned by him, including that of 17 other persons. The instructions are kept on record. 5. Since the footage from the mobile camera, which has been saved in a pen drive and referred to by the Investigating Officer in his instructions, has not been seen by us, we are unable to ascertain at this stage whether the petitioners were involved. The Investigating Officer may have examined the footage and verified the names provided by the Gram Pradhan. 6. At this initial stage, we do not find any sufficient ground for interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench