Writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under Section 353(2) BNS. The court declined to quash the FIR as it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, but directed that arrest provisions of Section 35 BNSS and related Supreme Court guidelines be strictly complied with before any arrest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10217 of 2025
Sharukh Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, Mohammad Saqib Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 30
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
CRLP No. 10217 of 2025
2
the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)
November 3, 2025 KU
Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR dated 29.9.2025 under Section 353(2) BNS could be quashed, given it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
Whether directions for compliance with Section 35 BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines were required before arrest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniRelied on¶3
(2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶3
(2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharApplied¶4
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and AnotherApplied¶4
order dated 21.01.2025
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sharukh Ahmad
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko.
3 Others
Rajiv Gupta
Pramod Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
