Disposed¶18

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025CRLP/25679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing refused; cognizable offence prima facie disclosed; Sections 308(2), 351(3), 352 BNS; Section 35 B.N.S.S. arrest safeguards; offence punishable up to seven years; Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines; Vimal Kumar 2021 (2) ACR 1147 directions dated 28.01.2021; Case Crime No. 429 of 2025; P.S. Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 25679 of 2025; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition finally disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioner is arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (2021 (2) ACR 1147). ¶18

Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25679 of 2025

Pankaj Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rakesh Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 47

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Mr. Rakesh Dubey, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 01.11.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 429 of 2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS at Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence, complained of, is punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

¶13

We have perused the F.I.R., which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Apex Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 . As such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

¶14

However, considering the fact that the offence complained of in the impugned FIR, is punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific

¶15

CRLP No. 25679 of 2025

¶16

¶17

provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. 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 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 , be strictly complied with.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶19

November 18, 2025 Monika

¶20

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

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumarpal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil and 2 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ravindra Yadav and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Tasleem and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others