Disposed¶18

Raju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2026CRLP/25/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR not granted; writ petition disposed. Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 compliance for offences punishable with less than seven years; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 applied. FIR/Case Crime No. 304 of 2025, Sections 115(2), 352, 74 BNS 2023, PS Indira Nagar, Lucknow. Conditional protection: appearance before and cooperation with Investigating Officer; protection withdrawable on default at instance of prosecution or complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quashing the FIR; petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate in the investigation till completion, with protection of the order liable to be withdrawn on default on application of the prosecution or complainant. ¶18

Raju Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25 of 2026

Raju Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

n ers		....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Aditya Vikram Yadav	Shahi,	Ankit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 11

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. bearing FIR/Case Crime No.304 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 74 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Indira Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences as alleged in FIR carry maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment, whereas, the police is trying to arrest him, which is against the mandate of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents-State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be strictly followed in terms 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.

¶15

CRLP No. 25 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.

¶18

Accordingly, 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) .

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

January 7, 2026 prateek

¶22

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

Raju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

Kunal @ Kunal Shukla and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Priti Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Kripashankar Vimal @ Kripashankar Jagannath Vimal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Rajkumari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Mo. Usman @ Usman Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Mehrotra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others