Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash FIR in Bareilly Unrest Case, Upholds Sanctity of Investigation

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) filed in connection with a violent public unrest incident in Bareilly. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad , declined to interfere in the ongoing police investigation, underscoring the limited scope of judicial intervention at this preliminary stage.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Adnan, approached the High Court seeking to quash FIR No. 1146 of 2025, registered at Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. He also sought protection from arrest in the matter.

The FIR was lodged following a violent clash that erupted on September 26, 2025. According to the prosecution, a call for a public assembly by one Maulana Taukir Raza led to a large gathering. The police reported that the crowd, numbering 200-250 people, became aggressive after being informed that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in effect and no permission had been granted for the assembly.

The situation escalated dramatically, with the mob allegedly attacking police personnel with brickbats, stones, acid bottles, and even firing gunshots. The FIR details a severe breakdown of law and order, which resulted in injuries to police officers and created an atmosphere of terror in the area. Adnan was specifically named as an accused in the FIR.

Arguments in Court

The State's Position: The Additional Advocate General, Sri Anoop Trivedi, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued forcefully against the petition. He contended that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. He stressed that an attack on the police force, which is responsible for enforcing law and order, is a grave threat to the authority of the State and the rule of law.

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, the state's counsel invoked: * State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) : This case lays down illustrative guidelines for when a High Court can quash an FIR, emphasizing that such power should be exercised "very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases."

* Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra (2021) : This more recent precedent cautions High Courts against passing interim orders like "no coercive steps" or stay of investigation while a probe is in progress. The Supreme Court held that the accused should instead be directed to seek remedies like anticipatory bail.

The Petitioner's Stance: Faced with the robust arguments from the prosecution and the weight of the cited legal precedents, the counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ansar Ahmad, strategically withdrew the primary relief sought in the petition.

> "Faced with this, Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to press the relief for quashing of the F.I.R. in the writ petition," the judgment noted.

The petitioner's counsel then recast his plea, requesting that the petitioner be granted the liberty to pursue other appropriate legal remedies available to him, such as applying for anticipatory bail before a competent court.

Court's Final Order and Its Implications

Accepting the petitioner's withdrawal of the prayer to quash the FIR, the High Court declined the relief. The bench disposed of the writ petition while acknowledging the petitioner's right to seek other legal avenues.

> "It is always open to the petitioner to avail other legal remedies as may be advised," the court stated in its order dated November 13, 2025.

The court's decision reinforces the established legal principle that High Courts should refrain from interfering with police investigations unless the FIR, on its face, discloses no cognizable offence or is manifestly malicious. By relying on the Neeharika Infrastructure judgment, the Allahabad High Court has signaled a clear hands-off approach to ongoing investigations, directing accused individuals to follow the standard procedures laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as seeking anticipatory bail, rather than attempting to halt the investigation process through a writ petition.