The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has granted interim protection from arrest to a petitioner, strongly criticizing the local police for registering a highly exaggerated and logically flawed FIR that read like a “movie script.” Observing the blatant absurdities in the police narrative, the Court summoned a personal explanation from the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, and cited Supreme Court guidelines on quashing inherently improbable criminal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 13, lodged on January 22, 2026, at Police Station Jarwal Road in District Bahraich against the petitioner, Akbar Ali, and others. The FIR invoked multiple charges, including Sections 325 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023, Sections 25, 4, and 4 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3, 5, and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
According to the police narrative in the FIR, a police party was approached by an informant (Mukhbir Khas) about an ongoing cow slaughter. Upon reaching the spot, the police claimed to have heard the accused saying, “Ujala hone wala hai” (it is about to be dawn). The police then allegedly yelled at the accused to surrender, to which the accused purportedly responded, “Yeh… police wale hain, inko goli maro, bachkar nahin jaane chahiye” (These are police personnel, shoot them, they should not escape). The police then opened fire, and one of the accused reportedly yelled, “hai goli lag gai” (I have been shot). The police arrested three individuals, who subsequently named the petitioner as being involved in the offences.
Arguments of the Parties
The matter was brought before the High Court by the petitioner, represented by advocates Naved Alam, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Naveen Awasthi, and Prateek Mishra. They challenged the FIR and sought the intervention of the Court against the alleged arbitrary police action. The State-respondents were represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA).
Court’s Analysis
A division bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava expressed severe dissatisfaction with the drafting of the FIR, observing that it was “an instance of the ‘movies scripts’, which are repeatedly finding place in the FIRs being lodged by the respondent-authorities.”
The Court highlighted a glaring factual incongruity regarding the timeline of the alleged incident. The FIR, lodged at 14:24 hours (02:24 p.m.), indicated that the incident occurred at 10:45 hours (10:45 a.m.) on the same day. However, the police narrative claimed that at the time of the incident, the accused were saying, “Ujala hone wala hai” (it is about to be dawn).
The bench sharply remarked, “Thus, in case, the incident is said to have taken place at 10:45 hours and obviously must be because the FIR mentions so, it is not understood as to how at 10:45 hours, the dawn is still to break!! This blatant incongruity in the FIR itself reflects the patent abuse of law at the behest of the authorities rendering the FIR as capable of being quashed.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that the police utilized a “popular dialogue of movies,” specifically: “Tum log police se ghir chuke ho, Aatm Samarpan kar do.”
The bench stressed that “language being used in the FIRs does not reflect the ground position, rather appears to be hearsay, scripted and appears to be heavily borrowed from the movie scripts and is fanciful and highly exaggerated.”
Relying on legal precedent, the High Court cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The bench specifically invoked category (5) from the judgment, which dictates that extraordinary power under Article 226 can be exercised: “(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” The High Court concluded that the allegations in the present FIR fit this description perfectly.
Decision
Taking a strict view of the matter, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, District Bahraich, to file a personal affidavit within two weeks to explain the incongruities apparent in the FIR.
The Court scheduled the next hearing for March 16, 2026, with a clear directive: “In case, the personal affidavit is not filed, the Superintendent of Police, District Bahraich shall appear in person alongwith the record to assist the Court on the next date of listing.”
Providing interim relief, the bench ordered that “no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR” until the next listing.
- Case Title: Akbar Ali Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others
- Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1393 of 2026
