Allahabad High Court
GULJAR NAVI ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the FIR stands, and any bail application shall be considered by the lower court in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioner Guljar Navi Ansari filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 17‑April‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 333, 109(1), 131, 352, 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The State argued that the incident on 16‑April‑2026 was proved and that the statement of an injured eye‑witness could not be discarded without compelling reasons, relying on Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana. The petitioner later withdrew the challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that his bail application be decided in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State did not oppose this equitable request. The High Court refused the prayer to set aside the FIR, dismissed the writ petition, and directed that any bail application be considered by the lower court following the Satender Kumar Antil precedent.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 17‑April‑2026 can be set aside on the ground of insufficient evidentiary value of the injured eye‑witness’s statement.
- Whether the High Court should intervene in the bail application of the petitioner and direct its consideration in line with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 131, 333, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR challenge
- bail
- writ petition
- injured eye‑witness
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10188 of 2026
Guljar Navi Ansari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Keshri, Ramanand
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mahendra Singh
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel for petitioner and
the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1,2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner- Guljar Navi Ansari has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 17.4.2026
lodged by first informant/respondent-4 Ekbal Ahmad Ansari and registered
as Case Crime No. 204 of 2026, under Section 333, 109 (1), 131, 352,
351(3), BNS, Police Station- Atrauli, District- Aligarh.
3. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing
State/respondents-1,2,3 submits that the incident giving rise to present writ
petition, occurred on 16.4.2026. In the aforesaid incident, three persons
namely, Iqbal, Ahmad and Rehana, sustained injuries. According to the
learned A.G.A. in view of above the occurrence stands proved. Apart from
above, the learned A.G.A. also contends that the statement of an injured eye
witness has greater evidentiary value than an ordinary witness. The same can
be discarded only on compelling reasons.
However, upon perusal of pleadings raised in present writ petition no such
compelling circumstance has emerged on record on the basis of which the
statement of aforesaid injured can be discarded. To buttress his submissions,
the learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in
Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC
632. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above since prima
CRLP No. 10188 of 2026
2
facie the occurrence is proved, and three persons have sustained inijuries,
therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.
4. When confronted with above, the learne learned counsel for petitioner
proceeded with the submissions. However, 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 submission 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. Having hard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for
State/respondents, upon persual of record and considering the rival
submissions urged by the learned counsel for parties, this writ petition is
disposed of finally with a direction that in case, petitioner appears before
Court below and applies for bail then in that eventuality his bail application
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).
8. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
May 12, 2026
Arshad
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…