HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5084 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 27.01.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 6 of 2025, under Section 85 B.N.S. and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, Police Station Vedpura, District Etawah and further seeking a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report. 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) BNSS (41-A Cr.P.C). It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and they could not be arrested 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 Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Srivastav, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Raghuraj Singh Jitendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others in 2021 (2) ACR 1147. 5. We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgements are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the judgements as noted above. October 13, 2025 Brijesh Maurya CRLP No. 5084 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad