Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10428 (ALL)

PRIYANSHU PANDEY (MINOR) v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/21383/2026 · 2026-09-29

Abdul Shahid, Mayur Jain Jt Registrar J Listing

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21383 of 2026 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main reliefs:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 23.08.2026 in Case Crime No.176 of 2026, under Sections 316(2), 308 (2), 352, 351 (3) B.N.S., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Gorakhpur (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of First Information Report dated 23.08.2026 in Case Crime No.176 of 2026, under Sections 316(2), 308(2), 352, 351 (3) B.N.S., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Gorakhpur." 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner after some length of arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the petitioner police may be directed to follow the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Priyanshu Pandey (Minor) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions and prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and no objection by learned A.G.A. on innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and provision of Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. September 30, 2026 Atul CRLP No. 21383 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad