Manindranath Pandey And 8 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11349 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manindranath Pandey And 8 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 9 October, 2025

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179329-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22044 of 2025   
 
   Manindranath Pandey And 8 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 45
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.  

HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 10.08.2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0187 of 2025, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Phephna, District Ballia but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 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 order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

(Devendra Singh-I, J.) (Rajiv Gupta, J.)

October 9, 2025

Ashutosh