Allahabad High Court
AHMAD ALI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioners are directed to apply for bail within two weeks and the bail application shall be decided in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Summary
Petitioners Ahmad Ali and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 13‑08‑2026 registered under sections 75, 333, 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. During the pendency of the petition, sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were added, making the alleged victim a child. The petitioners sought a direction that the lower court decide their bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The State’s Additional Government Advocate raised no objection to this prayer. The High Court refused the writ relief but ordered the petitioners to appear before the lower court within two weeks to file a bail application, which must be decided applying the Satender Kumar Antil precedent. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the FIR can be entertained after the addition of POCSO provisions.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to decide the bail application based on a Supreme Court precedent.
- Whether any relief can be granted to the petitioners in the writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- FIR
- POCSO Act
- criminal miscellaneous writ petition
- Supreme Court precedent
- child victim
- high court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21628 of 2026
Ahmad Ali And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arpit Singh, Ishwar Chandra Tyagi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners-Ahmad Ali And 2 Others have approached this Court by
means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated
13.08.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-3, Khurshid and registered
as Case Crime No. 240 of 2026, under Sections 75, 333, 115(2), 352 of
B.N.S., Police Station-Mandi Dhanaura, District-Amroha.
4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1
and 2 submits that during the pendency of present criminal misc. writ
petition Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, has also been added.
5. In view of above, it is apparent that prosecutrix is a child within the
meaning of term "Child" as defined in Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. On
the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that no indulgence
be granted by this Court in favour of petitioners in present writ petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly
submits that interest of justice shall better be served, in case, a direction is
issued by this Court to Court below to decide 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
CRLP No. 21628 of 2026
2
(2021) 10 SCC 773. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners
that present writ petition be disposed of in the light of above.
7. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2 has no objection to the
prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners.
8. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition
is refused.
8. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for
State-respondents 1 and 2 upon perusal 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, petitioners appear before
Court below within a period of two weeks from today and apply for bail then
in that eventuality their bail application shall be decided by Court concerned
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.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 16, 2026
Imtiyaz
Digitally signed by :-
IMTIYAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…