Alok @ Alok Soni and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

Alok @ Alok Soni and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in view of Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 and the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra); petitioners directed to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required and to cooperate in the investigation till completion, failing which the protection of this order may be withdrawn on application by the prosecution or the complainant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who did not intend to raise a challenge to F.I.R. No. 46 of 2026 (Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya), are entitled to the benefit of the Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil judgments, considering that the offences indicated in the F.I.R. carry maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment.

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the offences indicated in the impugned F.I.R. carry maximum punishment for a term less than seven years' imprisonment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

Key takeaways

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever required and to continue cooperating in the investigation till its completion, failing which the protection of this order may be withdrawn on an application by the prosecution or the complainant.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1407 of 2026 (decided February 16, 2026; Abdul Moin & Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.): Counsel for the petitioners (Alok @ Alok Soni and others) did not press a challenge to F.I.R. No. 46 of 2026 (Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya) and sought the benefit of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and 2026 INSC 115, the offences carrying maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment. Holding that the investigating agencies are duty bound to comply with Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023), the Court disposed of the petition in view of Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 and the said Apex Court law, directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required and to cooperate till completion of investigation, failing which the protection of the order may be withdrawn on application by the prosecution or the complainant.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1407 of 2026

Alok @ Alok Soni And Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anil Sharma, Sameer Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 11

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party no.4 is hereby dispensed with.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing at some length, states that he does not intend to raise a challenge to the F.I.R. No.46 of 2026 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B. N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya but prays that the benefit of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another - (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another- (2022) 10 SCC 51 may be given to him, considering that the offences indicated in the aforesaid F.I.R. carry maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment.

Further, recently the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another-2026 INSC 115 has also held that for effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the mandate of Section 35(1) (b) (i) of B.N.S.S., 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the B.N.S.S, 2023 must be in existence and further if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section 35 (1)(b) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken,

CRLP No. 1407 of 2026

2

unless it is absolutely warranted.

There is no dispute that the offences as indicated in the impugned F.I.R. carry maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has categorically held that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023). As such, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in re; Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

However, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever they are required to cooperate in the investigation. Thereafter, they shall continue to cooperate in the investigation till its completion, failing which, protection of this order may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant.

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

February 16, 2026

prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench