Allahabad High Court
DEVENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is refused, but the Court directs that any bail application be decided by the lower court in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioner Devendra filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 11‑02‑2026 that alleged offences under IPC sections 74, 333, 351(3) BNS and POCSO Act sections 7 and 8. During the hearing, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that the lower court decide his bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The State, represented by the Advocate General, raised no objection to this request. The High Court refused the writ petition but disposed of it with an order that any bail application filed by the petitioner be decided by the trial court following the Supreme Court precedent. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction to the lower court on the grant of bail after the petitioner withdrew his challenge to the FIR.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to apply the Supreme Court’s law in deciding the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3) BNS, 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal miscellaneous writ petition
- FIR challenge
- POCSO Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5142 of 2026
Devendra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balbir Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Balbir Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Devendra has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 11.02.2026 lodged
by first informant-respondent-4 Ramesh and registered as Case Crime No.
106 of 2026, under Sections 74, 333, 351(3) BNS and Sections 7 & 8 of
the POCSO Act, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly.
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner gave up the
challenge to the impugned FIR. He, however, submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, 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 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.
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
CRLP No. 5142 of 2026
2
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…