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
- BNS — s. 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 — s. 7
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
Checking your session…