Allahabad High Court
SADDAM HUSAINversusSTATE 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 trial court in line with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Summary
Petitioner Saddam Husain filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 25-07-2025 registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After presenting arguments, the petitioner withdrew the primary relief sought but requested the High Court to direct the lower court to decide his bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) SCC 773. The State, represented by the Advocate General, did not oppose this request. The Court refused the writ petition, effectively dismissing the challenge to the FIR, but issued a direction that any bail application by the petitioner be decided by the trial court following the law laid down in the cited Supreme Court case. The interim order, if any, was discharged and the petition was finally disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed through a criminal miscellaneous writ petition.
- Whether the High Court may direct the lower court to decide bail in accordance with a Supreme Court precedent after the petitioner withdraws the main relief.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 323, 498-A, 506
Subjects
- criminal law
- FIR
- bail
- writ petition
- quash
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9582 of 2026
Saddam Husain
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chaman Aara, Shabista Parveen
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Ms. Shabista Parveen, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner- Saddam Husain has approached this Court by means of
present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 25.07.2025
lodged by first informant-respondent-4 Enuddin and registered as Case
Crime No. 0207 of 2025, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Nichlaul,
District- Maharajganj.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR
proceeded with his submissions. However, after some arguments, the learned
counsel for petitioner fairly gave up the prayer prayed for by means of
present writ petition. 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
CRLP No. 9582 of 2026
2
SCC 773.
5. Learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 does not oppose
the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
6. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition
is, hereby, refused.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3, upon perusal of record and
considering the bona fide submissions urged by the counsel for the
petitioner, this writ petition shall stand 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.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 6, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…