Allahabad High Court
SHIVESH ALIAS BHOLU PANDEY AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, but the court directs that any bail application be decided by the lower court in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioners Shivesh alias Bholu Pandey and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 27‑02‑2026 that alleged offences under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and later added section 117(2), as well as Section 67 of the Income‑Tax Act. After arguments, the petitioners withdrew their challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that the lower court consider their bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773. The State did not oppose this equitable request. The High Court refused the prayer for relief but disposed of the writ petition, directing that any bail application be decided by the trial court following the Apex Court’s law. The interim order was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 27‑02‑2026 can be quashed or set aside.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to decide the bail application of the petitioners in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 67
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- FIR challenge
- bail
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court of Allahabad
- Indian Penal Code
- Income Tax Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5522 of 2026
Shivesh Alias Bholu Pandey And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bashisth Narain Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
Heard Mr. Ankit Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioners and the
learned A.G.A. for State/respondents.
Perused the record.
Petitioner- Shivesh Alias Bholu Pandey And 2 Others have approached this
Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the F.I.R.
dated 27.2.2026, lodged by first informant Urmila Devi and registered as
Case Crime No. 102 of 2026, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and
Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Dhanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.
On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-
1,2,3 submits that section 117 (2) BNSS has also been added subsequently.
On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that one person has
sustained injury in the incident giving rise to present writ petition. As such
no interference is warrranted by this Court in present writ petition, as
occurrence is now prima facie proved to have happened.
After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly gave up the
challenge to the impugned FIR. He however 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 Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2, 3 does not oppose
CRLP No. 5522 of 2026
2
the equitable submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners.
In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is
refused.
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 below in the light of the law laid down
by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
April 20, 2026
Arshad
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…