Disposed

Arum Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025/1962/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of cognizance/summoning order and charge-sheet in a POCSO case. Counsel confined the prayer to benefits under Supreme Court guidelines on appearance without arrest and sought liberty to re-approach. Application disposed with liberty; police directed not to take coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with liberty to re-approach; police directed not to take coercive action against applicants for 30 days; no application on that point to be entertained.

Arum Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1962 of 2025

¶3

Arum Kumar Mishra And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: P.K. Singh Bisen
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶12

The present application has been filed by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):-

¶13

"For the facts and reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance/summoning, Annexure no 1, order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Special Session Trial No. 1714 of 2025 (State Versus Arun Kumar Mishra and another) passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh and as well as the charge sheet No. A43 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025 submitted in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 under Sections 356(2), 62, 352, 351 (3), 74 of B.N.S., 2023 (Sections 500, 511, 504, 506, 354 of I.P.C. respectively) and 9(m)/10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 related to the Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice."

¶14

On being confronted after taking note of the facts of the case including the contents of FIR and the statement of victim recorded before the concerned Magistrate in terms of Section 183 BNSS and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 6 observed that " Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial" , learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that at this stage, he is confining his prayer to seek the benefit of the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51; Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi Versus State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5286, for which liberty may be given to the

¶15

NA528 No. 1962 of 2025

¶16

¶17

applicant(s) to approach this Court again at appropriate stage for seeking appropriate relief.

¶18

The relevant paragraph of Smt. Bacchi Devi (Supra) referred are as under:-

¶19

"38. Based on the foregoing deliberations, and to give effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, and to secure the ends of justice as well as to implement the directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), hereby directs as follows:

¶20

(i) All District Judges shall ensure that, in cases where the chargesheet has been filed without arrest-whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer, or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation-the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons, nor insist upon filing of regular or anticipatory bail applications. The accused shall be permitted to appear and furnish a personal bond at the first instance, in terms of Musheer Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra)5. The requirement of surety under Section 91 BNSS may be considered subsequently at the court's discretion to ensure appearance of the accused.

¶21

(ii). At the stage of proceedings under Sections 88, 170, 204, and 209 Cr. P.C. (corresponding sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 of BNSS), the trial court-whether presided over by a District Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, or Magistrate-shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance, and may require surety subsequently, if necessary27.

¶22

(iii). Immediately after appearance of accused in response to summons, the court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 of BNSS, 2023, committing the case to the court of session when exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay.

¶23

(iv). For the sake of clarity, when the trial court encounters such anticipatory bail or protective orders under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS specifying protection till the filing of the charge-sheet, or direct that “no coercive action”/“stay on arrest shall operate until filing of charge sheet”, these protections shall be deemed to continue until the conclusion of trial, in line with Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), Sushila Aggarwal (supra), Sidharth (supra), Satender Kumar Antil (supra), and Musheer Alam (supra) unless supported by with cogent reasons, making out an exceptional case. This direction aligns with the consistent position adopted by the Supreme Court, beginning with Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), affirmed in Sushila Aggarwal (supra), clarified in Sidharth (supra), and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Musheer Alam (supra). A reference may be invited to paragraphs 43, 44, 46 and 47 of the order dated 11.7.2022; paragraph no. 3 of order dated 7.10.2021; paragraph no. 6 of order dated 16.12.2021; paragraph no. 4, 5 and 6 of order dated 21.3.2023; paragraph nos. 7(ii) of

¶24

NA528 No. 1962 of 2025

¶25

¶26

order dated 2.5.2023; paragraph nos. 229 to 239 of the order dated 13.2.2024; paragraph nos. 79 to 85 of the order dated 6.8.2024 passed in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, [all the orders mentioned hereinabove have been passed by Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021].

¶27

(v). The Joint Director (Prosecution) in each district shall maintain detailed records of all such cases where trial courts remanded accused persons to custody, despite chargesheets being filed without prior arrest, contrary to the Supreme Court directives in Arnesh Kumar (supra), Sidharth (supra), Satender Kumar Antil (supra), and observation made in Musheer Alam (supra).

¶28

(vi). All Jail Superintendents shall maintain corresponding records of such cases. The record shall be maintained in a register documenting cases along with a remand order where an accused has been sent to jail by the trial court despite not being arrested during the investigation and the judicial remand is contrary to the judgments mentioned in preceding paragraph.

¶29

(vii). The Additional Director General of Police (Prosecution), Directorate of Prosecution, Lucknow, shall compile an annual, centralised record of all such instances, based on data from Joint Directors (Prosecution), and Jail Superintendents. This record shall be reviewed periodically, submitted to higher authorities, including the Registrar General of the High Court. It shall be used to assess the conduct of Judicial and Prosecuting Officers. The Directorate of Prosecution shall promote compliance with binding directions, protect the constitutional right to liberty, and preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. The objective is to establish an additional layer of oversight at the zonal and regional levels, complementing the centralised data maintained by the Directorate of Prosecution.

¶30

(viii). The Director, JTRI, Lucknow, shall ensure sustained training programmes for judicial officers to secure compliance with this order.

¶31

(ix). The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, in coordination with District Court Bar Associations, shall conduct regular legal awareness camps to educate and sensitise advocates on these directions.

¶32

(x). District Judges shall submit monthly reports to the High Court containing: (a) the number of cases in which judicial remand was ordered despite no prior arrest; (b) feedback on judicial training and compliance with these directions; and (c) details of legal awareness camps conducted. A reference is invited to paragraph 11(d) of the order dated 21.1.2025 passed in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI22.

¶33

(xi). It is noted that Sidharth (supra) was delivered on 16.08.2021 and reinforced in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) by order dated 11.7.2022. Despite this, violations persisted by the learned trial courts, leading the Supreme Court to direct skill enhancement training for a District Judge nearly a year after Satender Kumar Antil and two years after Sidharth. The Supreme Court also expressed concern that judges in other districts of Uttar Pradesh remained unaware or indifferent to these directions, therefore, it can safely be observed that the longstanding practice of District Judges merely endorsing ‘seen’ on the cover page of circulation letters for judgments has lost its efficacy. Therefore, the learned District Judges shall endorse: “Read, understood, and discussed

¶34

NA528 No. 1962 of 2025

¶35

¶36

with fellow judges of the district”, and, after deliberating on this judgment with their fellow judges, submit a report to this effect to the Registrar General of this Court immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order."

¶37

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant(s).

¶38

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.

¶39

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), Musheer Alam (Supra) and Smt. Bacchi Devi (Supra) , this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard, no application shall be entertained.

¶40

December 8, 2025

¶41

Jyoti/-

¶42

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arum Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arum Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Niraj Kumar and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Gupta @ Jay Jay and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shubham Agarwal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Saurabh Ahlawat vs Dr. Ratan Pal Singh Suman Director General Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko.

Mohd. Aafaq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 5 Others