The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday expressed concern over police action that led to three private cars being locked inside a citizen’s residence without any prior explanation. The matter was taken up urgently after the petitioner, Abhihita Misra, alleged harassment by local police officers.
During the brief but tense hearing, the State struggled to justify the raid conducted by nine police personnel late at night earlier this month.
Background
According to the petition, on November 2, 2025, around 5:26 pm, police men “barged” into Misra’s house and locked three white cars belonging to the family. No documents, offence details, or any explanation was provided at the time, the counsel submitted.
The petitioner expressed fear of wrongful implication, claiming their family had suddenly been made to feel “like criminals” without cause. The urgency plea mentioned an ongoing mental distress due to police silence.
The Court had earlier directed the Station House Officer of Sushant Golf City to personally appear and explain.
On Monday, Station House Officer Upendra Singh appeared with written instructions. The firing incident took place on October 31, 2025, past midnight when “unknown persons riding in a white car” allegedly shot inside a residential school. CCTV footage later led police to the petitioner’s premises, where three white vehicles were found and “got locked” to prevent tampering.
The Court was also told that the complainant initially hesitated to file an FIR due to fear, but later registered it under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 a preventive provision relating to suspicious conduct. The investigation currently targets “unknown persons.”
The AGA added that only one of the vehicles was linked with the incident, and the other two had already been unlocked. The car suspected of use in the crime is now in police custody.
Court’s Observations
Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani reminded police that enforcement cannot override fundamental rights.
“The bench observed, ‘The petitioner and her family shall not be harassed in any manner.’”
On the petitioner’s demand for the FIR copy, counsel cited a Supreme Court ruling requiring FIRs to be uploaded on police websites. The Court clarified that the top court ruling creates exceptions: sensitive cases including terrorism or sexual offences need not be uploaded online.
However, the judges emphasized the remedy still available. If FIR access is denied citing sensitive nature, the petitioner may apply to the Superintendent of Police, who must then decide through a special three-officer committee within three days.
In simpler words: the petitioner can get the FIR if she qualifies as an “aggrieved person,” and the committee must decide quickly.
Decision
In the end, the Bench disposed of the petition with clear safeguards:
- The petitioner can apply for the FIR through the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court
- Authorities must assess whether she qualifies as an aggrieved party and decide accordingly
- Police cannot proceed against the petitioner without complete due process of law
With that note, the case was formally closed on November 10, 2025.
Case Title:- Abhihita Misra vs State of U.P.
Case Number: 10536 of 2025
Advocates:
- For Petitioner: Shashank Singh, Amit Jaiswal
- For Respondents: Government Advocate (A.G.A.)
