Sajid vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sajid vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim direction: in case of arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, respondent authorities shall ensure compliance with Section 35 BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil safeguards; notice issued to respondent no.3 returnable within four weeks; counter affidavit permitted within the same period; case listed on 12.08.2026. Quashing prayer left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 18.03.2026 (Case Crime No. 0183 of 2026, under Sections 3 and 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955) discloses any offence against the petitioner and is liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court held that the matter requires consideration and did not decide the quashing prayer at this stage; it issued notice to respondent no.3 returnable within four weeks, directed steps within a week, permitted learned AGA to file a counter affidavit within the same period, and listed the case on 12.08.2026.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, since all offences on the basis of which the impugned FIR has been registered are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, in case of arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the FIR the respondent authorities shall ensure compliance with Section 35 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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.), order dated May 13, 2026, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8662 of 2026 (Sajid v. State of U.P. and 2 others): petition seeking quashing of FIR dated 18.03.2026 (Case Crime No. 0183 of 2026) under Sections 3 and 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli. The Court found the matter requires consideration, issued notice to respondent no.3 returnable within four weeks, permitted the AGA to file a counter affidavit within the same period, and listed the case for 12.08.2026. Interim direction: since the offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, in the event of arrest of the petitioner the authorities shall ensure compliance with Section 35 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8662 of 2026

Sajid

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd.	Naushad
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 48

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

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

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 18.03.2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 0183 of 2026, under Sections 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 Investigation and Another vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly

CRLP No. 8662 of 2026

2

complied with.

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

Issue notice to respondent no.3 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

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

List this case on 12.08.2026.

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 petitioner 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 Investigation and Another vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly complied with.

May 13, 2026

Nadim

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad