Allahabad High Court
VIVEK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is refused and disposed of, with a direction to the lower court to decide the bail application in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Vivek Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging an FIR dated 23‑03‑2026 registered under Section 318(4) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act. During the hearing 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’s Additional Government Advocate raised no objection to this request. The High Court refused the writ petition, disposing of it, but issued a directive that any bail application by the petitioner be decided by the trial court following the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the FIR under Sections 318(4) IPC and 66‑D IT Act is maintainable.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to decide the petitioner’s bail application based on the Supreme Court precedent in Satender Kumar Antil.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-D
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- bail
- writ petition
- FIR
- Information Technology Act
- Section 66‑D
- Section 318
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10195 of 2026
Vivek Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Raj Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioner, the
learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar
Tripathi, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Vivek Kumar has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 23.03.2026 lodged
by first informant-respondent-4 Shrikant Pandey and registered as Case
Crime No. 0015 of 2026, under Section 318(4) BNS and Section 66-D of
IT Act, Police Station-Cyber Crime Jaunpur, District-Jaunpur.
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly gave
up the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition. It is, however,
contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, interest of justice shall better be served, in
case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to
Court concerned to decide the bail application of petitioners 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. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 & 2 has no objection to the
aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners.
6. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ
CRLP No. 10195 of 2026
2
petition is refused.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for
State-respondents 1 & 2, upon perusal of record and considering the
submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners, this writ petition
shall stand disposed of finally with a direction to Court concerned that in
case, petitioners appear before Court below and apply for bail then their
bail applications shall be decided by Court concerned in the light of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra).
8. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vinay
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…