Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ARNAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is refused, but the court directs that any bail application by the petitioner be decided by the trial court in line with the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

Summary

Petitioner Arnav filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 03‑04‑2026 registered under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 3(5) of the BNS Act and section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. The State contended that a firearm injury occurred, several accused were arrested, firearms were recovered and CCTV footage linked the petitioner to the crime, asserting that the FIR was prima facie valid and that the court should not interfere. The petitioner withdrew his original relief but sought a direction that the lower court decide his bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State did not oppose this request. The High Court refused the writ petition but issued a direction that any bail application by the petitioner be decided by the trial court following the Satender Kumar Antil precedent, and discharged any interim order.

Issues considered

  • Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition can be entertained to challenge the registration of an FIR and to seek direction on bail matters.
  • Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to decide a bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal writ
  • FIR challenge
  • bail
  • Supreme Court precedent
  • interference
  • firearm injury
  • CCTV evidence
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10141 of 2026

Arnav
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Ambikesh     Kumar     Sharma,     Vimal
                                  Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

Court No. - 49
                 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Surya Nath Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ambikesh
Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.


3. Petitioner- Arnav has approached this Court by means of present criminal

misc. writ petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 03.04.2026 lodged

by first informant-respondent-4 Deepak Pawaar, Sub-Inspector, Police

Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad and registered as Case Crime No.

0199 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and

Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station- Civil

Lines, District- Moradabad.


4. On the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. representing State-

respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that in the incident giving rise to present

criminal proceedings, one person namely, the named accused- Lucky Saini

has sustained firearm injury. Furthermore, during pendency of the

investigation, three of the named accused namely, Akhil Chauhan, Saurabh

Kumar and Harsh Chaudhary were arrested. On the pointing out of the
                                                          CRLP No. 10141 of 2026
                                 2


arrested accused, recoveries of country-made firearms have also been made.

Learned AGA further submits that it has come in the Case Diary that the

incident giving rise to present criminal proceeding has also stands recorded

in the CCTV installed near the place of occurrence. The complicity of

present petitioner has also surfaced in the crime in question. On the above

premise, the learned AGA would thus, submit that prima facie, the

occurrence is proved. Apart from above, since there is an injured, therefore,

no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.


5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly

gave up the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition. He,

however, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of

justice shall better be served, in case, a direction is issued by this Court to

Court below to decide 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.


6. Learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 does not oppose

the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.


7. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition

is, hereby, refused.


8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.

representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3, upon perusal of record and

considering the bona fide submissions urged by the counsel for the

petitioner, this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with a direction

that in case, petitioner appears before court below and applies for bail, then

his bail application shall be decided by court concerned in the light of the
                                                                                         CRLP No. 10141 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil

                                    (Supra).


                                    9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.



                                                                 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.