Allahabad High Court Quashes COVID-Era Criminal Proceedings Against Two Jaunpur Residents

On September 18, 2026, Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary of the Allahabad High Court ordered the complete quashing of the criminal case against Mohd Faizan and an unnamed co-accused. The bench held that the First Information Report (FIR), filed in April 2020, was predicated solely on “presumption and assumption” that the men might have been infected with COVID-19 and could transmit the virus to others.

The Hindu

During the nationwide lockdown that began in March 2020, police alleged that the two men traveled from Jaunpur to Delhi’s Hazrat Nizamuddin Markaz to attend a religious gathering. An FIR was lodged at Shahganj police station on April 2, 2020 under Sections 188, 269 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 223, 271 and 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Act, Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act 2005, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. The accused were medically examined, placed in quarantine, and later tested negative for COVID-19. Their petition argued that the charges were based on unfounded allegations and that the investigation was inadequate.

From Nizamuddin Markaz To Criminal Case: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Two Men Who Tested Negative

• April 2, 2020 – FIR registered.

From Nizamuddin Markaz To Criminal Case: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Two Men Who Tested Negative

• May 8, 2020 – Charge sheet filed after statements from police and the examining doctor were recorded.

From Nizamuddin Markaz To Criminal Case: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Two Men Who Tested Negative

• December 15, 2020 – Trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused.

Bar & Bench

• September 18, 2026 – High Court quashes the FIR and all pending proceedings.

From Nizamuddin Markaz To Criminal Case: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Two Men Who Tested Negative

The court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce concrete evidence that the accused intentionally violated health advisories or actually spread infection. The negative COVID-19 test results further undermined the basis of the case.

The Hindu

He concluded that the FIR was “crystal clear” in its false and frivolous nature, driven by “ulterior motive and malafide intent.” The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal; Prashant Bharti v.

From Nizamuddin Markaz To Criminal Case: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Two Men Who Tested Negative

• Charges filed: Sections 188, 269, 307 (IPC); Sections 223, 271, 109 (U.P. Police Act); Section 51(b) (Disaster Management Act 2005); Section 3 (Epidemic Diseases Act 1897).

CNN-News18

• COVID-19 test outcome: Negative for both accused at the time of the trial.

Bar & Bench

The decision reinforces that pandemic-related criminal prosecutions must meet the same evidentiary standards as ordinary cases. By dismissing charges based solely on speculative risk, the court sets a precedent limiting the use of public-health statutes for punitive action without proof of intent or actual transmission. Legal analysts note that the ruling adds to a growing series of High Court judgments curbing over-broad applications of emergency laws during the COVID-19 crisis.

CNN-News18

All consulted sources consistently report the same factual timeline and judicial reasoning. No contradictory figures or divergent interpretations were identified. However, the public record does not disclose the identity of the second accused, nor does it detail any appeal that might be filed by the State, leaving those aspects unaddressed.

The Indian Express