Allahabad High Court
FARHAN QURESHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A writ petition is maintainable even if the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and the High Court may direct the lower court to consider the petitioner’s bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s precedent.
Summary
Petitioner Farhan Qureshi filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 20.01.2026 under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, alleging that he is a prospective accused though not named in the FIR. The State argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The Court held that the petition is maintainable despite the omission and refused the substantive relief sought, but accepted the petitioner’s fair submission to direct the lower court to consider his bail application in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI. No opposition was raised to this direction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to apply the Supreme Court’s bail law, and any interim order was vacated.
Issues considered
- Is a writ petition challenging an FIR maintainable when the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR?
- Can the High Court direct the lower court to consider the petitioner’s bail application based on a Supreme Court precedent?
Legislation cited
- Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5, 8
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- FIR
- maintainability
- bail
- Cow Slaughter Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5568 of 2026
Farhan Qureshi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shivam Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned AGA representing State respondents 1&2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner Mr. Farhan Qureshi has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated
20.01.2026 lodged by first informant respondent 3 Sri Prince Sharma and
registered as Case Crime No. 0040 of 2026, under Section 3/5/8 Cow
Slaughter Act, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur.
4. At the very outset, the learned AGA representing State respondents
1&2 submits that petitioner is not named in impugned first information
report. As such, present writ petition, filed at the behest of petitioner, who
is not named in the FIR is not maintainable.
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner has
invited the attention of Court to the document appearing at page 26 of the
paper book, and on basis thereof, it is contended by the learned counsel
for petitioners that since petitioner is wanted in concerned case crime
number, therefore the present writ petition on behalf of petitioner who
falls in the category of prospective accused.
6. In view of above, we hold that present writ petition filed by petitioner
is maintainable and is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that since
CRLP No. 5568 of 2026
2
petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore he cannot maintain the
present writ petition.
7. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up
the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition. It is however
contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that interest of justice
shall better be served in case the present writ petition is disposed of
finally with a direction to Court below to consider the bail application of
petitioner in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
(2022) 10 SCC 51.
8. Learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1&2 does not oppose
the aforesaid fair submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioner.
9. We do not find any legal impediment for not accepting the fair
submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is
refused.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
for State respondents 1&2, upon perusal of record and considering the
submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner as noted herein
above, we dispose of this writ petition finally with a direction that in case
petitioner appears before Court below and applies for bail, then his bail
application shall be considered by Court below in the light of law laid
down by Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
April 20, 2026
Arif
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…