HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10752 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the respondents. 2. Under Challenge is the remand order dated 05.11.2025, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the learned Magistrate in FIR dated 25.09.2025 registered as Case Crime No.153 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 125(a), 118(2) B.N.S., Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur. 3. The contention of learned petitioner for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been arrested on 05.11.2025 and the learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned whereby remand of the petitioner has been accepted. 4. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid remand order has been passed without taking into consideration the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Sections 47 & 48 of the B.N.S.S. as held the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 (8) SCC 254 and as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 INSC 1288 inasmuch as no ground for arrest in writing was given to the petitioner either at the time of arrest or even subsequently which thus vitiates the arrest and the remand order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ripu Daman Shahi, Iqbal Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anjali Verma Kallu @ Kuldeep Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned AGA does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) as well as the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 & 48 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.11.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1, is quashed. 7. Let the petitioner be released forthwith provided he is not wanted in any other case. However, this order would not preclude the respondents from seeking a fresh application for remand in accordance with law which would be decided in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate. November 17, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 10752 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench