Allahabad HC Cites Bhajan Lal, Refuses to Quash Bareilly Violence FIR Involving Acid Attack Allegations

Lucknow, India – The Allahabad High Court has delivered a stern message on the limited scope of judicial interference in criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving grave threats to public order. In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) related to the September 2025 Bareilly violence, where a mob allegedly attacked police personnel with acid, brickbats, and firearms.

The Court's decision underscores the judiciary's reluctance to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when serious, cognizable offences are disclosed prima facie . The case serves as a crucial reminder of the enduring principles laid down in landmark Supreme Court judgments, even as the Indian criminal justice system transitions to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Background of the Petition

The writ petition was filed by Adnan, an accused in the Bareilly violence case, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR. The FIR invoked a slew of stringent provisions under the new BNS, including Sections 191(2) and 191(3) (related to rioting armed with deadly weapons), 124(2) (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 121 (assaulting public servant when suppressing riot), 351(3) (causing grievous hurt by corrosive substance), and others.

The prosecution's case, as detailed in the FIR, alleges that on September 26, Maulana Taukir Raza issued a call for members of a specific community to assemble. Despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS being in effect, a crowd of 200-250 individuals gathered and marched towards a sensitive area, raising provocative slogans.

When confronted by police, the situation escalated dramatically. The FIR alleges that the mob became aggressive and attacked the police force with stones, brickbats, and acid bottles. Shots were allegedly fired from within the crowd towards the police. The violence resulted in injuries to two police officers and damage to their uniforms, creating what the State described as an "atmosphere of terror."

The State's Powerful Arguments

Representing the State, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by AGA Paritosh Malviya, mounted a robust defence of the investigation. The core of his argument was that an attack on law enforcement personnel is not merely an assault on individuals but a direct challenge to the authority of the State and the very fabric of the rule of law.

"Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi... strongly contended that the attack on police force, which is enforcing law and order, constitutes a grave threat to the authority of the State and the rule of law," the Court noted, capturing the essence of the State's position.

The State emphasized the gravity of the allegations, particularly the use of acid and firearms against police. It argued that such offences have a "cascading effect" and, if not dealt with firmly, could endanger public safety and order.

Critically, the State's counsel placed heavy reliance on two seminal Supreme Court judgments that define the contours of the High Court's power to quash FIRs: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra . These precedents establish that the High Court should not stifle a legitimate investigation at its inception, especially when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The argument was clear: granting any interim relief, such as quashing the FIR, would severely hamper the ongoing investigation into a serious crime.

Strategic Concession and the Court's Order

Faced with the formidable legal bulwark of Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure , counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Ansar Ahmad, made a strategic decision. The source notes that he "submitted to the Court that the petitioner does not wish to press the relief for quashing of the FIR." This concession effectively acknowledged the strength of the State's arguments and the high legal bar for quashing an FIR containing such severe allegations.

Consequently, the High Court declined the primary relief sought. The bench of Justice Bhanot and Justice Prashad disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the allegations, a standard practice when the prayer to quash is not pressed. However, the Court preserved the petitioner's rights to pursue other legal avenues.

"The High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate remedies available under the law," the order stated.

This leaves the door open for the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail before the appropriate trial court, where the matter can be argued on its specific merits at the relevant stage.

Legal Implications and Analysis for Practitioners

This case offers several key takeaways for legal professionals, particularly those practicing criminal law:

1. Reaffirmation of Bhajan Lal Principles: The order is a classic application of the Bhajan Lal guidelines. It reinforces that High Courts will exercise extreme caution and refrain from acting as an investigative agency. Where the FIR, on its face, reveals ingredients of a cognizable offence, the power to quash will not be invoked.

2. Gravity of Allegations is Paramount: The nature of the allegations—acid attacks, firing on police, and organized defiance of prohibitory orders—weighed heavily on the proceedings. Courts are significantly less likely to interfere when the alleged crime threatens public order and the machinery of the State.

3. Early Test for BNS/BNSS: This case is one of the early instances where a High Court has dealt with a challenge to an FIR filed under the new criminal codes. While the underlying legal principles for quashing remain the same, practitioners must be prepared to argue the applicability and ingredients of the new BNS sections.

4. Strategic Litigation: The petitioner's decision to withdraw the prayer for quashing demonstrates astute legal strategy. Pressing a weak case for quashing in the face of binding Supreme Court precedent could have resulted in adverse observations from the High Court. By withdrawing, the petitioner avoids a negative finding on the merits and preserves their arguments for the bail stage.

The Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash the FIR in the Bareilly violence case is a significant judicial pronouncement that reinforces the foundational principles of criminal procedure. It highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the State's imperative to investigate serious crimes, ensuring that the investigative process is not prematurely terminated, especially when the allegations strike at the heart of state authority and public order.