HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11160 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 4.11.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0555 of 2025, under Sections 191(2) (corresponding section-147 I.P.C.), 191 (3) (corresponding section 148 I.P.C.), 121(1) (corresponding section 332 I.P.C.), 121(2) (corresponding section 333 I.P.C), 132 (corresponding section 353 I.P.C), 324 (5) (new section) of B.N.S., 2023 & section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act., Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 3. We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ramadal And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. November 27, 2025 R CRLP No. 11160 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM ASARE MORYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench