Disposed¶14

Vindesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026WRIC/1217/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order; writ petition (WRIT-C 1217 of 2026) by Vindesh Kumar Yadav against State of U.P.; grievance of verbal direction by SHO, Police Station Muhammadabad to deposit licensed P.N.B. Rifle No. AB-05-5448 (licence valid till 31.03.2028) ahead of Panchayat Elections in Uttar Pradesh; Court found no election notification on record and oral information unsubstantiated; Standing Counsel directed to seek instructions; matter listed fresh on 13.02.2026; Bench: Arun Kumar, J.; decided January 28, 2026; no statutes or case law cited; no final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Interim course only: learned Standing Counsel directed to seek and obtain instructions; writ petition listed again as fresh on 13.02.2026. No final relief granted or decided on merits. ¶14

Vindesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1217 of 2026

Vindesh Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 36

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is in possession of P.N.B. Rifle No. AB-05-5448, in respect of which firearm, licence has been issued to him, which is valid till 31.03.2028. He further contends that the Station House Officer, Police Station Muhammadabad has verbally informed him to deposit his P.N.B. Rifle as the Panchayat Election in the State of Uttar Pradesh is going to be held shortly.

¶12

There is no evidence on record that any notification of the panchayat election has been issued. The oral information received by the petitioner is also unsubstantiated. However, in view of the specific averments having been made in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter.

¶13

List again as fresh on 13.02.2026. In the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel shall obtain instructions.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

January 28, 2026

Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vindesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindesh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar, Panchayat Assistant Cum Data Entry Operator Village Panchayat-Jigna vs State of Up and 7 Others

Vinod Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Parashar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prem Prakash Tripathi vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju Gautam vs the State of U.P. and Another