Refusing to interfere with a murder case registered in Jaunpur, the Allahabad High Court has declined to quash the FIR lodged against an accused but granted him temporary protection from arrest for 60 days.
The Court said that if the petitioner appears before the court concerned within the stipulated period and seeks regular or anticipatory bail, his plea shall be decided in accordance with law.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against him, provided he has not already been arrested.
The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vivek Saran while dismissing a writ petition moved by Bholu Rajbhar.
Read also: Adult Couples Have Right to Peaceful Married Life, Rules Allahabad High Court
Through the petition, Rajbhar had sought quashing of the FIR registered on May 2, 2026, at Khetasarai police station in Jaunpur under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and had also prayed for protection against arrest.
As per the prosecution case, the informant, Ram Lakhan Bind, alleged that his son Azad and one woman were in a relationship and were set to marry.
Ram Lakhan Bind alleged that Pradeep, a relative of woman, had objected to the alliance and had previously threatened his son with dire consequences, including death.
It was alleged that on the day fixed for the marriage, Pradeep, along with Ravi Yadav and the petitioner, Bholu Rajbhar, attacked and killed Azad. The deceased’s younger brother was stated to be an eyewitness to the incident.
Arguing before the High Court, the petitioner claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Opposing the petition, the State maintained that the allegations were of a serious nature.
On a consideration of the rival submissions and the material before it, the Bench declined to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR.
While disposing of the matter, the Court granted the petitioner 60 days to surrender before the competent court. It observed that if he applies for regular bail or anticipatory bail within that period, the concerned court shall consider his application in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
The Bench further made it clear that failure to appear before the trial court within the prescribed period would expose the petitioner to coercive action in accordance with law. It also clarified that no further time for surrender would be granted.
Case: Bhole Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case No: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 12810 of 2026
Date of Order: 17.06.2026
Status: Dismissed
