Deepak Mehta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors.

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the impugned FIR No.0096 of 2025 dated 07.06.2025 lodged by the respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 326(g) and 352 of the B.N.S. 2023, registered with P.S. Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and further not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid FIR.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier when the FIR was lodged, Section 326(g) of the B.N.S. Act was not there against the petitioner. This Court has granted relief to the petitioner in WPCRL No.646 of 2025 vide its order dated 23.06.2025 in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another.

It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, during investigation, one more Section i.e. 326(g) of the B.N.S., 2023, was also added against the petitioner-Deepak Mehta and co-accused-Vikram Nagerkoti, which is punishable with the life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, therefore, the provisions of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) cannot be helpful to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition to seek protection from this Court under Section 326(g) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023.

This Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 asked the learned State Counsel to seek instructions as to how and why Section 326(g) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 was added against the petitioner.

Today, learned State Counsel passed on to this Court written instruction, which is taken on record. On the basis of the said instruction, learned State Counsel submits that during investigation, the statements of three witnesses, namely, Suraj Singh s/o Jhamman Singh, Suraj Singh S/o Managl Singh and Forest Range Officer-Roopnarayan Gautam, were recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. In those statements, it has come that the petitioner along with Vikram Nagerkoti has indulged in the arson in the public forest area.

I have perused the said instruction carefully and from perusal of the same, it is clear that prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offences is made out against the petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious in nature, therefore, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.