MD Mashood and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

MD Mashood and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Matter adjourned to 07.05.2026 to come up as fresh; the interim order granted by the Supreme Court was noted to remain operative while the case stays pending before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the restored writ petition should be adjourned, given that the High Court's own records have been weeded out and the petitioner's counsel's records remain with counsel in the Supreme Court, without prejudice to the petitioner.

Court's answer

The Court adjourned the restored writ petition to 07.05.2026, when it will come up as fresh again.

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the petitioner's rights would not be prejudiced by the adjournment because the interim order granted by the Supreme Court would remain operative throughout the period the case remains pending before this Court.obiter¶16
Observing on the state of the record, the Court noted that the Registry had weeded out and digitized the records of the physically filed writ petition in haste and an unsavory manner, so that only a copy from the uploaded data was available.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12661 of 2025 (Md Mashood And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, JJ., order dated April 30, 2026 — Restoration-stage order. The petition had earlier been disposed of by a Division Bench order dated 07.07.2025 directing that arrest steps during investigation follow only the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. On the petitioner's appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave and, by judgment and order dated 25.02.2026, held that a petition to quash an F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution, or an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., must be decided on merits rather than dismissed as infructuous or by merely directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar; the Division Bench order was set aside and the writ petition restored to file. Finding its own physical records weeded out and digitized by the Registry, and the petitioner's counsel's records still with counsel in the Supreme Court, the Court adjourned the matter to 07.05.2026 to come up afresh, noting that the petitioner's rights would suffer no prejudice as the Supreme Court's interim order would remain operative while the case pends.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12661 of 2025

Md Mashood And 3 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Budhi Sagar Tripathi : G.A.

Court No. - 47

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

When this matter has come up, we are informed that our own records have been weeded out. This petition was disposed of by an order of the Division Bench dated 07.07.2025 directing that the steps to arrest the petitioner during investigation ought only be taken in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and the directions there were underscored by the Division Bench to be followed by the respondents.

Upon a petition for Special Leave being preferred by the petitioner, leave was granted by the Supreme Court and the appeal allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2026. The Supreme Court held that in a petition to quash the F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution, or for that matter, an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the law is that it ought to be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra) . It is pursuant to this order of the Supreme Court setting aside the order of the Division Bench dated 07.07.2025 disposing of the present writ petition that this petition has been restored to file and has come up before us.

We must say that in haste and an unsavory manner, the records of this writ petition, which was physically filed have been weeded out by the Registry and digitized. So today, what we have is not the physical papers, but a copy from the uploaded data.

CRLP No. 12661 of 2025

2

Almost the same thing has happened to the learned Counsel for the petitioner or as he tells us, his records were sent to the learned Counsel in the Supreme Court and are not back yet in his hands. For the purpose, he seeks a short adjournment. The petitioner's rights would not be prejudiced because there is an interim order granted by the Supreme Court, which would remain operative all through that this case remains pending before this Court.

In the circumstances, we adjourn this matter to 07.05.2026, when it will come up as fresh again.

(Tarun Saxena, J.) (J.J. Munir, J.)

April 30, 2026 AS/Deepak

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad