Allahabad High Court Orders Strict Compliance With Arnesh Kumar Guidelines, Says Callous Approach By Judicial Officers Won't Be Taken Lightly

The Allahabad High Court held that in cases where the punishment for the offence is up to seven years, the judgment of the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Ors and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar shall be abided by in letter and spirit by the Police authorities.

It added that if any remand application is filed before the Judicial Officers, such Judicial Officers shall carefully examine the contentions of the Investigating Officer who has filed the remand application to know as to why the remand has been sought for the accused person(s).

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed, "we find it appropriate to direct that in the cases where the offence under which the F.I.R. has been lodged, the maximum punishment is up to seven years, the dictum of Apex Court in Re:- Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 and (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another shall be abide by in letter and spirit by the Police authorities and if any remand application is filed before the Judicial Officers, such Judicial Officers shall carefully examine the contentions of the Investigating Officer who has filed remand application to know as to why the remand has been sought for the accused person(s)."

Advocate Skand Bajpai appeared for the Petitioner, while AGA Aniruddh Singh appeared for the Respondents

It was added, "Any careless or callous approach of either Police Officers or Judicial Officers may not be taken lightly. At the same time, the plea of juvenility, if it is raised, shall be taken into consideration by concerning authorities, strictly in accordance with law. Lastly, the factum of illegal confinement, if it is established, may be taken seriously and erring Official/Officers may not be spared. So, all the concerning Official/Officers shall not take up aforesaid issue lightly."

Brief Facts & Previous Hearings

A writ petition was filed by the Petitioner, through his sister, seeking to release him from judicial custody.

An FIR was filed against the Petitioner and others under Section 303(2) of B.N.S., wherein the maximum punishment is three years. After arresting the petitioner, Section 317(2) of B.N.S. was added, wherein the maximum punishment is five years.

On the previous date of hearing, the Court had remarked that the allegation against the petitioner was related to the offence wherein the maximum punishment is three years and five years respectively; therefore, he should not have been arrested by the police officers nor should his remand application have been filed before the Magistrate concerned.

The Court had also noted that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the Petitioner.

The police authorities had failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation prior to his arrest. Although the co-accused had been arrested earlier, no efforts had been reflected in the case diary to contact the petitioner’s family members or seek a bond for appearance under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Furthermore, stark contradictions had appeared between the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest communicated to the petitioner.

Crucially, as per the Transfer Certificate issued by the educational institution, the petitioner’s date of birth had been recorded as 18.04.2009, establishing that he had been a minor under 17 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.

Neither the arresting officer nor the remanding Magistrate had verified his age, resulting in the illegal detention of a juvenile in adult judicial custody under multiple mechanically passed remand orders.

The Court had previously directed the immediate release of the petitioner from jail as an interim measure. The Court had summoned the personal presence of the concerned officers.

During the hearing on July 16, 2026, the police officers had appeared in person before the Court. The Additional Government Advocate had informed the Bench that a preliminary inquiry had been initiated against the Sub-Inspector concerned by the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, though the final outcome had remained pending.

The Court had kept the consideration of the judicial officers' apology pending, exempted the Head Constable from further personal appearance, directed the AGA to produce specific instructions regarding departmental action against the Sub-Inspector, and adjourned the matter to August 17, 2026.

Observations of the Court

The Court asked as to why the charge-sheet was not filed against the Petitioner, to which it was informed that some minor exercise in the investigation is to be completed and as soon as such exercise is completed, the police report may be filed against the petitioner.

"Notably, the Judicial Officers who have allowed the remand application of the Investigating Officer have submitted their bonafide submission and tendered their unconditional apology with the undertaking that they shall remain careful in future", the Court recorded.

The Court held that, considering the fact that the investigation was completed for all practical purposes and the charge-sheet was filed against accused persons except the present petitioner and the present petitioner was treated as a juvenile, and he shall be treated in a manner in which a juvenile accused is treated.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs Rubi v. State of U.P. and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:LKO:57909-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Skand Bajpai, Abhyudaya Mishra, Shamim Arif and Shashank Tripathi

Respondents: GA Shishir Jain

Click here to read/download the Judgment