Allahabad High Court
MOHAN PRAKASH @ MOHAN MITTALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court may not grant the original relief but can direct the lower court to decide the bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioner Mohan Prakash challenged an FIR dated 20‑12‑2025 registered under Section 111(2)(b) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking relief, but later withdrew the substantive prayer, asking only that the court direct the lower magistrate to decide his bail application in accordance with Supreme Court law. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, raised no objection to the petitioner’s revised request. The High Court refused the original relief sought but ordered that any bail application be decided by the concerned court following the precedent set in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction regarding bail, and any interim order was discharged.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, is appropriate in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition where the petitioner withdraws the original prayer?
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower magistrate to decide a bail application based on Supreme Court precedent.
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal writ petition
- FIR challenge
- Essential Commodities Act
- jurisdictional magistrate
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2052 of 2026
Mohan Prakash @ Mohan Mittal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Khalid
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Mr.
Mohammad Khalid, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
A.G.A for the State-respondents-1 to 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Mohan Prakash @ Mohan Mittal has approached this Court
by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated
20.12.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-4 Smt. Sumallika,
Supply Inspector, Police Station-Kheragarh, District-Agra and registered
as Case Crime No. 236 of 2025, under Section 111(2)(b) BNS and
Sections 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act, Police Station-
Kheragarh, District-Agra.
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits
that he does not wish to press the prayer prayed for by means of present
writ petition. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, interest of
justice shall better be served, in case, a direction is issued by this court to
the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Court concerned 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. It is thus urged by the learned counsel
for petitioner that present writ petition be disposed of in the light of
above.
CRLP No. 2052 of 2026
2
5. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 has no objection to the
prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
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 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.
March 18, 2026
Vinay
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…