The Allahabad High Court's vacation bench in Prayagraj has issued a significant order, providing temporary relief to two individuals from Fatehpur district in a case registered under the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court has stayed the arrest of Santosh Dwivedi and another petitioner until the next hearing, citing concerns over the investigation's conduct.
Court's Interim Order and Key Arguments
A division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Satya Veer Singh passed the order on Tuesday. The bench directed the state government to file its reply and scheduled the next hearing for February 16, 2026. The order came after the petitioners' counsel argued that there was an "eminent threat" of their arrest.
The counsel highlighted a critical timeline: the FIR was lodged on December 18, 2025, by the Station House Officer of Asothar police station in Fatehpur. Shockingly, within just one week, by an order dated December 26, 2025, the petitioners were declared absconders. This swift action, according to the petitioners, demonstrated mala fide intent on the part of the police authorities.
Petitioners' Contention: Malice and Abuse of Process
The core of the petitioners' challenge rests on several allegations regarding the FIR's legitimacy. Their counsel made the following key submissions to the court:
- The FIR was not initiated by a private complainant but directly by the police.
- The serious charge of attempt to murder under Section 109(I) of the BNS was added later during the investigation, not at the FIR's inception.
- The alleged incident occurred in the context of an official inspection related to the second petitioner's work as a Gram Pradhan, following a complaint from a private person. However, no formal complaint regarding the incident itself was filed by any private individual.
Based on this, the petitioners' counsel vehemently argued that the FIR was not only malicious but also a blatant abuse of the court's process. They pleaded that the FIR deserved to be quashed by the High Court and that without protection, the petitioners would suffer irreparable harm to their liberty.
State's Opposition and Legal Tug-of-War
The state counsels opposed the petition on procedural grounds. They pointed out that the petitioners had already sought protection by filing an anticipatory bail application, the next date for which is January 6, 2026. The state argued that the petitioners cannot legally pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously.
In a sharp rebuttal, the petitioners' counsel clarified their legal strategy. They stated that while anticipatory bail was initially sought, the sudden and alarming development of being declared absconders within a week of the FIR forced them to approach the High Court for urgent relief through this writ petition. This, they argued, was a necessary step given the imminent threat of arrest that emerged during the pendency of their bail plea.
The court's decision to grant interim protection, despite the state's objections, underscores the serious questions raised about the case's procedural integrity. All eyes are now on the state's reply and the subsequent hearing in February 2026, which will determine the future course of this legal battle.
