Allahabad High Court
RAM BHAROSI AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court refused the writ petition but ordered that the bail applications be decided by the lower court in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioners Ram Bharosi and five others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 29.01.2026 lodged by the widow daughter‑in‑law of petitioner‑1 under sections 329(3), 329(4), 324(4) and 351(4) of the B.N.S. The petitioners later withdrew the challenge to the FIR and instead sought a direction that the lower court decide their bail applications in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State’s Additional Government Advocate raised no objection to this request. The High Court refused the prayer for a writ but disposed of the petition by directing that any bail application be decided by the trial court following the Antil precedent. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, can be granted by a High Court in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking direction on bail applications after the petitioner withdraws the challenge to the FIR?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 324(4), 329(3), 329(4), 351(4)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- bail
- FIR challenge
- writ petition
- high court
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5576 of 2026
Ram Bharosi And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girish Kumar, Vijay Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Tripathi, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned
A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Dharmendra Singh, the
learned counsel representing first informant respondent-4.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners-Ram Bharosi And 5 Others have approached this Court by
means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated
29.01.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4 Ranu Sharma and
registered as Case Crime No. 04 of 2026, under Sections 329(3), 329(4),
324(4), 351(4) of B.N.S., Police Station-Mansukhpura, District-Agra.
4. Present case very peculiar inasmuch as the criminal prosecution has been
initiated by the widow daughter-in-law of the petitioner-1.
5. After some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners that present
writ petition be disposed of in the light of above.
6. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 has no objection to the
prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners.
CRLP No. 5576 of 2026
2
7. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition
is refused.
8. However, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that in
case, petitioners appear before Court below and apply for bail then their 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).
9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
April 20, 2026
Imtiyaz
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
IMTIYAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…