Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

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 (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil ((2022) 10 SCC 51; 2026 INSC 115); petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate till completion of investigation, failing which the protection of the order may be withdrawn on application by the prosecution or the complainant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose offences in F.I.R. Case Crime No. 38 of 2026 carry maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment, should be given the benefit of the Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51, i.e. compliance with Sections 41/41-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) BNSS 2023) before any arrest.

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

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 Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra), under which investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023).ratio¶¶18
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever required to cooperate in the investigation, and to continue cooperating until the investigation is completed.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1613 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, JJ., decided February 19, 2026. Petitioner Vinod Kumar did not press his challenge to F.I.R. Case Crime No. 38 of 2026 (Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Salon, Raebareli) and prayed only for the benefit of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, since the offences carry maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment. The Court noted the further Apex Court ruling in Satender Kumar Antil, 2026 INSC 115, that arrest for an offence punishable with up to seven years requires the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) BNSS 2023 together with one Section 35(1)(b)(ii) condition, and disposed of the petition in view of Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 and that law, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate till completion of the investigation, failing which the protection of the order may be withdrawn on application by the prosecution or the complainant. Notice to opposite party no. 4 was dispensed with.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1613 of 2026

Vinod Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Arpit Singh : G.A.

Court No. - 11

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, after arguing at some length, states that he does not intend to raise a challenge to the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.38 of 2026, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., lodged at Police Station Salon, Raebareli, 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. 1613 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever he is required to cooperate in the investigation. Thereafter, he 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.

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

February 19, 2026

prateek

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