Disposed¶22

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2026CRLP/7430/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order in writ petition seeking quashing of FIR under Ss. 318(4), 316(2), 351(2) BNS and S. 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act; arrest protected subject to Section 35 BNSS, Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil directions; notice issued; listed 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction: in case of arrest of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, authorities shall ensure compliance with Section 35 of BNSS and the guidelines/directions in Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil (orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026); notice to respondent no.4 returnable within four weeks; counter affidavit by learned AGA within the same period; case listed on 14.07.2026. No final decision on quashing. ¶22

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 02.02.2026 (Case Crime No. 0031 of 2026) discloses any offence against the petitioners so as to be liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Matter requires consideration; notice issued to respondent no.4 returnable within four weeks with steps within a week; learned AGA permitted to file counter affidavit within the same period; case listed on 14.07.2026.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In the meantime, since all offences under the impugned FIR are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners, the respondent/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of BNSS, the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and the further directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026).

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed to quash FIR dated 02.02.2026 (Case Crime No. 0031 of 2026) under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi. Petition admitted to consideration; notice issued to respondent no.4 returnable within four weeks; AGA to file counter affidavit. Interim safeguard: since all offences are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, in the event of arrest the authorities must comply with Section 35 BNSS and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and the directions in Satender Kumar Antil (orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026). Listed on 14.07.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7430 of 2026

¶3

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Singh, Anil Kumar Yadav, Atma Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 48

¶10

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 02.02.2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 0031 of 2026 under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Police Station Lohta District Varanasi.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the allegations made in the impugned FIR, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioners and as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that on the careful perusal of the impugned FIR, it is evident that all the sections, under which, the impugned FIR has been registered, are punishable with the term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, respondent/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigating and Another

¶15

CRLP No. 7430 of 2026

¶16

¶17

vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly complied with.

¶18

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, matter requires consideration.

¶19

Issue notice to respondent no.4, returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

¶20

Learned AGA may also file counter affidavit within the same period.

¶21

List this case on 14.07.2026.

¶22

In the meantime, since all the offences, on the basis of which, the impugned FIR has been registered are punishable with the term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, respondent/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigating and Another vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly complied with.

¶23

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

¶24

April 13, 2026 S.K.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Subhash Chandra Maurya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Kashi Nath vs State of U.P. and 56 Others

Pushpraj Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jaipal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vivek Kr. Yadav Alias Prince vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gullo @ Gulnaz and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others