HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10180 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. This case has been taken up on the consent given by the Court considering the urgency as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the garb of the impugned range case lodged against the petitioner, the respondents are harassing the petitioner even though the case involves punishment of less than seven years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.D.Bhatt, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3. 3. In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party no. 4 is hereby dispensed with. 4. This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Range Case No. 11/2025-26 via Form No. H-2 lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner at South Nighasan Range District- Lakhimpur Kheri on 27.09.2025 under Sections 26, 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 7/55 (2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences as alleged in impugned range case carry maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment, whereas, the police is trying to arrest them, which is against the mandate of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. 6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents-State has given a statement on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Shakti Kumar Verma, Yashab Husain Rizvi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Syed Maksood Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Environment Forest And Climate Change Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be strictly followed in terms of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another - (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another- (2022) 10 SCC 51. 7. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in re; Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 9. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever they are required to cooperate in the investigation. Thereafter, they shall continue to cooperate in the investigation till its completion, failing which, protection of this order may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant. October 27, 2025 Pachhere/- CRLP No. 10180 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench