Allahabad High Court
ANKIT YADAV AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed, but the High Court directs that the bail application be decided by the lower court in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
The petitioners, led by Ankit Yadav, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 1‑April‑2026 that alleged offences under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During the hearing, the petitioners withdrew their challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that the lower court consider their bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State, represented by the Attorney General, did not oppose this equitable request. The High Court refused the original prayer to quash the FIR but disposed of the writ petition by directing that any bail application be decided by the trial court following the Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the interim order was discharged and the petition was finally disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can dismiss a writ petition challenging an FIR while directing the lower court to decide a bail application based on Supreme Court law.
- Whether the petition to quash the FIR is maintainable after the petitioners withdrew the challenge.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 189, 324, 351, 352, 75, 78
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR challenge
- criminal miscellaneous writ petition
- SC/ST Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10131 of 2026
Ankit Yadav And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Singh Yadaw
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for
petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1,2,3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners- Ankit Yadav has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 1.4.2026 lodged by
first informant/respondent-4- Ravindra Ram and registered as Case Crime
No. 0108 of 2026, under Sections 189(2), 75, 78, 351(3), 352, 324 (4) BNS
and Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police
Station- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj.
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up the
challenge to the impugned FIR. He submits that interest of justice shall
better be served, in case, a direction is issued by this court to Court below to
consider the bail application of petitioner in the light of law laid down by the
Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2, 3 does not
oppose the equitable submissions urged by the learned counsel for
petitioners.
6. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition
is refused.
7. However, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that in
CRLP No. 10131 of 2026
2
case, petitioner appears before Court below and applies for bail then his bail
application shall be decided by Court below in the light of the law laid down
by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
8. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
May 5, 2026
Arshad
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…