The Allahabad High Court in the case Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others observed and has noted that as per the judgement of Arnesh Kumar, the arrest should be the exception where the offence is being punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment and the notice for appearance under Section 41A Code of Criminal Procedure should be served on the accused in such cases instead of arrest.
In the said case the arrest can be made in exceptional circumstances in such cases, but the court decided the reasons which have to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the writ plea has been moved by the accused wherein challenging the FIR against him , it has been submitted by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his prayer to issuing directions to the police authorities to follow the mandate of Section 41A Code of Criminal Procedure. The court disposed of the same matter by issuing of the following order: The court dispose of the plea with the direction to the police authorities concerned to follow the mandate of Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the direction has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. It has also been noted by the said court that as per the FIR which is being registered against 10 persons and other unknown people, the said allegations which are made against the accused are that he, along with the other persons tore the copies of Ramcharitmanas and has burnt them in a public place by trampling the same under their feet and the shouted slogans in support of former minister Swami Prasad Maurya and made lewd comments against those who believe in Ramcharitmanas.
However, in the said case the controversy pertaining to Ramcharitmanas arose after Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya, in a statement, wherein it is alleged claimed that certain chaupayi of the Ramcharitmanas insult a large section of society on the basis of caste and further it has been demanded that all these are banned. It has also been claimed by him that it also promoted social discrimination. The counsels, Senior Advocate Jyotindra Misra along with advocates Pradeep Kumar Shukla, AnjaniKumar Dvivedi, Mayank Dwivedi appeared for the petitioner.