Satyam Bind and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satyam Bind and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with relief confined to Section 35 BNSS protections: authorities directed to ensure arrest procedure per Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines as offences are punishable up to 7 years; Police expected not to harass the petitioners till conclusion of investigation, subject to petitioners' cooperation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report registered on 28.10.2025 (Case Crime No. 646 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131 BNS, Police Station Sarai Khwaza, District Jaunpur) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash the F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained.

Ratio / Principle

No interference with the F.I.R. is warranted.

Key takeaways

Since all offences mentioned in the present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.ratio¶16
The Police are expected not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever; however, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.) disposed of CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-25659 of 2025 (decided November 18, 2025) filed by Satyam Bind and another seeking quashing of the FIR dated 28.10.2025, Case Crime No. 646 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131 BNS, Police Station Sarai Khwaza, District Jaunpur. The Court held the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, hence the quashing prayer could not be entertained, relying on State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, and found no interference warranted. Relief was confined to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: as all offences in the case are punishable up to 7 years, authorities were directed to ensure arrest procedure per Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines; the Police were expected not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation, and the petitioners were required to cooperate in the investigation.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25659 of 2025

Satyam Bind And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Virendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 47

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 3.

2. Perused the record.

3.Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 28.10.2025 lodged as Case Crime No. 646 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131 BNS, Police Station - Sarai Khwaza, District- Jaunpur but at the time when the matter is taken up the learned counsel for petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

4.We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 .

5.We are of the view that no interference is warranted.

However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. November 18, 2025 Dhirendra/

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad