Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11012 (ALL)

PRATEEK @ PRIYANSHU @ PRATEEK JHA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/23435/2026 · 2026-09-27

Mayur Jain Jt Registrar J Listing, Tarun Saxena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23435 of 2026 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 11/09/2026 case crime no. 0259/2026, U/S- 318(4), 317(5), 112(2) B.N.S. P.S.- Kotwali, District Jhansi. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition." 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 State vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhriguram Ji, Deo Brat Pandey, Prabhat Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Prateek @ Priyanshu @ Prateek Jha .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Bhriguram Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Pathak, 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 28, 2026 Saurabh CRLP No. 23435 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad