ANCHAL VISHWAKRMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10171 of 2026

Anchal Vishwakrma And Another
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                           :    Raj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :    G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned
A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Ambresh Kumar, Advocate, who has put
in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent- 4 by filing his Vakalatnama
today in Court which is taken on record.


2. Perused the record.


3. Petitioners-Anchal Vishwakrma And Another have approached this Court by means
of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 17.04.2026 lodged
by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Shanti Yadav and registered as Case Crime No.
80 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352 BNS and Sections
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) va and 3(2)v of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police
Station-Walterganj, District-Basti.


4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents- 1
to 3 submits that in the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings two
persons namely, Raju and Rajmani Yadav have sustained injuries on their person.
While injured Raju has sustained four injuries on his person, the another injured
Rajmani Yadav has sustained three injures on his person. The injuries sustained by the
injured Rajmani Yadav are grievous in nature as, he has been referred to higher centre
for treatment.


5. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. would thus submit that prima facie the
occurrence is proved. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that since there are
statements of two injured eye witnesses, therefore the occurrence cannot be doubted.
Further more the statement of an injured eye witness has higher evidentiary value than
an ordinary witness in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Manjit
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632. The statement of an injured
eye witness can be discarded only on compelling reason. Referring to the body of writ
                                                                                                    CRLP No. 10171 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    petition, the learned A.G.A. would contend that no such pleadings have been raised on
                                    behalf of petitioners on the basis of which the statement of the injured eye witness can
                                    be discarded by this Court. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would thus
                                    submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.


                                    6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners proceeded with his
                                    submission. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly
                                    gave up the challenge to the impugned FIR. He submits that interest of justice shall
                                    better be served, in case, present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction
                                    Court concerned to consider the bail application of petitioners in the light of law laid
                                    down by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
                                    Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773.


                                    7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel
                                    representing first informant-respondent-4 do not oppose the equitable submission
                                    urged by the learned counsel for petitioners.


                                    8. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is refused.


                                    9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing
                                    State-respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4
                                    upon perusal of record, and considering the review submission urged by the learned
                                    counsel for petitioner is noted above this writ petition is disposed of finally with a
                                    direction that in case, petitioners appear before Court below and apply for bail then in
                                    that eventuality their bail applications shall be considered by Court below in the light
                                    of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).


                                    10. However, court below which considering the bail application of petitioner- 1
                                    Anchal Vishwakrma, who is a lady shall be judged by the provisions contained in
                                    Section 437 Cr.P.C. now Section 480 BNSS.


                                    11. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

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




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad