Allahabad High Court
POONAM BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court refused to intervene in the FIR but directed the lower court to decide the bail application in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioner Poonam Bharti filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 11‑04‑2026 under Section 105 BNS. During the hearing, she withdrew the challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that the lower court consider her bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State, represented by the Advocate General, did not oppose this request. The High Court refused the prayer to intervene in the FIR but disposed of the petition by directing that any bail application be decided by the lower court following the Supreme Court precedent. The interim order was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court may direct a lower court to decide a bail application based on Supreme Court law when the petitioner withdraws a challenge to the FIR.
- Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition is an appropriate remedy to contest an FIR.
Subjects
- criminal law
- bail
- FIR
- writ petition
- high court
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10175 of 2026
Poonam Bharti
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Farzana Jamal, Shashi Kant
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Farzan Jamal, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned
A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1,2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner- Poonam Bharti has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 11.4.2026 lodged by
first informant/respondent-3- Sonu Kumar and registered as Case Crime No.
78 of 2026, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station- Ubhaon, District- Ballia
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 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
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).
CRLP No. 10175 of 2026
2
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…