Allahabad High Court: Mohammad Kaif Granted Interim Arrest Protection

• The Allahabad High Court granted interim protection from arrest to Ranji cricketer Mohammad Kaif.
• Kaif faces an FIR under Section 69 BNS for alleged sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage.
• The State's counsel highlighted contradictions in the complainant's statements during the investigation.
• An alleged incident at Hotel Hyatt in Lucknow was mentioned in one statement but not in the FIR or another statement.
• The investigating officer recommended transferring the case to Delhi due to primary allegations relating to that city.

The Allahabad High Court's decision to grant Mohammad Kaif interim arrest protection underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the veracity of initial complaints, especially when inconsistencies emerge.

The Allahabad High Court has issued an order granting interim protection from arrest to Ranji cricketer Mohammad Kaif. This decision stems from a criminal writ petition filed by Kaif, challenging an FIR lodged against him under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR, registered at the Ashiyana Police Station in Lucknow, accuses Kaif, who is the brother of Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami, of engaging in sexual relations with a woman under the false promise of marriage. Justices Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad passed the order on October 24, stipulating that Kaif would not be arrested until November 4, 2026, the date of the next scheduled hearing, provided he cooperates fully with the ongoing investigation.

According to the complainant, a resident of Lucknow, her acquaintance with Kaif began on Instagram in 2020, eventually developing into a relationship. She alleges that Kaif expressed his intention to marry her in August 2023, and despite her informing him of her previous marriage and son, he assured her these would not be obstacles.

The woman claims Kaif subsequently engaged in sexual acts with her at various locations, including Delhi, Kolkata, and Lucknow, based on repeated assurances of marriage. She further states she resigned from her cabin crew position due to Kaif's marriage promise, only for him to repeatedly postpone the wedding, once suggesting it would occur after the IPL auction in December 2025. Ultimately, she alleges Kaif distanced himself and ceased communication. Kaif's advocate, Nadeem Murtaza, countered these claims, arguing that the FIR was based on a fabricated story and that his client never made a promise of marriage. Murtaza also pointed out that the complainant first aired her accusations on a social media podcast on April 29, 2026, suggesting the FIR, registered in September, was intended to damage Kaif's reputation.

The case involves serious allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses sexual relations obtained through a false promise of marriage. During the court proceedings, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State highlighted significant contradictions within the complainant's statements recorded during the investigation.

Specifically, the AGA noted discrepancies between her statements made under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which correspond to the former Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An alleged incident at Hotel Hyatt in Lucknow, mentioned in her Section 183 BNSS statement, was reportedly absent from both the initial FIR and her Section 180 BNSS statement. Furthermore, the investigating officer recommended transferring the FIR to Delhi, as the primary allegations in the case were related to events that occurred in that city.

The Allahabad High Court's decision to grant Mohammad Kaif interim arrest protection underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the veracity of initial complaints, especially when inconsistencies emerge. This ruling offers a crucial temporary reprieve for the Ranji cricketer, preventing his arrest while the investigation proceeds and the court evaluates the merits of the criminal writ petition.

The conditional nature of the protection, contingent on Kaif's cooperation with the investigation, balances the rights of the accused with law enforcement's need to gather facts. The court's attention to the contradictions in the complainant's statements and the jurisdictional recommendation from the investigating officer suggests a careful and thorough approach to cases involving sensitive allegations like those under Section 69 BNS.

Lawyers should observe the Allahabad High Court's application of interim arrest protection under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 69, particularly where inconsistencies in complainant statements or jurisdictional questions arise. This case illustrates potential grounds for challenging FIRs alleging false promise of marriage at an early stage of proceedings, offering a precedent for defense strategies.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source