HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23587 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 11.08.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 79 of 2025, under Section 318(4) B.N.S., Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli and further seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, therefore, the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. (41-A Cr.P.C). It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the arrest cannot be made without following the procedure under section 41-A Cr.P.C (Section 35(3) BNSS). 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 and in Satendra Kumar Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Akash Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others v. State of U.P. & 3 others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the petition but does not contradict the position of law propounded by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgements. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the averments made in the petition and particularly, the allegations made in the FIR, we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in the above noted judgements are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the judgements as noted above. October 17, 2025 Brijesh Maurya CRLP No. 23587 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad