Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Challenges FIR Before SC Seeks Protection From Arrest Over Ghaziabad ‘Road-Rage’ Case

The petition challenges FIR No. 678/2026, registered at Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad, on August 18 in connection with an alleged road-rage incident near Shipra Mall. The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Information Technology Act. The petition itself notes discrepancies between the sections reflected in different portions of the FIR record.

Upadhyay, who runs the independent news portal “Top Secret”, has alleged that the FIR was lodged after he published investigative reports concerning alleged corruption and irregularities in Uttar Pradesh, including matters relating to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises and senior government officials.

Journalist denies road-rage allegations

According to the complaint forming the basis of the FIR, complainant Nikki Gautam alleged that his motorcycle was hit from behind by a Baleno near Shipra Mall on August 18. He further alleged that the driver abused and threatened him after the incident and identified the vehicle's owner as Abhishek Upadhyay.

Upadhyay has categorically denied the allegations and claimed that the incident was staged to target him because of his reporting. He has further alleged that the motorcycle registration number mentioned in the complaint does not correspond with the vehicle described by the complainant and does not belong to Gautam.

The petition also alleges that police personnel approached establishments near the alleged place of occurrence and pressured them to delete or not provide CCTV footage. These allegations are part of the petitioner's case and have not been independently established.

Plea alleges police raid at journalist's residence

The petition further states that a police team of around a dozen personnel arrived at Upadhyay's residence in Ghaziabad at around 10:30 pm on August 20, when he was away. According to the petition, his wife and two daughters were present at the residence.

Upadhyay alleges that the police entered the premises without prior notice, created panic and subsequently informed him that they intended to take him into custody in connection with the FIR. He claims that he was not initially provided with a complete copy of the FIR despite requesting one.

The petition states that an application was subsequently moved seeking supply of the FIR and information regarding the release of the vehicle involved, relying upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India.

Seeks independent investigation

The journalist has expressed apprehension of arrest and alleged that he may face physical harm if he approaches the Allahabad High Court. He has therefore directly approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

In the alternative, Upadhyay has stated that he is willing to join and cooperate with the investigation, but has sought a direction that the FIR, as well as any other FIRs allegedly arising from his reporting on the Ram Janmabhoomi donation issue, be investigated by the Delhi Police, CBI or another agency other than the Uttar Pradesh Police.

Petition links FIR to investigate reports

The petition traces the alleged sequence of events to a series of reports published by Upadhyay through “Top Secret” concerning alleged irregularities in the handling of donations and offerings at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya.

It states that the first reports were published in June 2026 and that the Uttar Pradesh government's SIT subsequently commenced an investigation. The petition records that an FIR was registered in Ayodhya on June 25 following the SIT's findings.

The petition further states that on August 19, Upadhyay published an investigative report concerning an alleged purchase of agricultural land in Bhadohi by an IAS officer and that the report was widely circulated. It alleges that the accompanying video was temporarily removed from YouTube following alleged pressure and was later restored after a legal notice.

The petition claims that the FIR and subsequent police action came amid this sequence of investigative reports. It alleges that the proceedings were intended to intimidate him, while seeking judicial protection of his life and personal liberty.

The allegations made by Upadhyay in the petition are yet to be adjudicated.