Disposed¶18

Arnav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026CRLP/10141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC criminal misc. writ petition challenging Moradabad FIR (Case Crime No. 0199 of 2026, P.S. Civil Lines) under BNS Ss. 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 3(5) and S. 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1932; prayer refused in view of arrests, firearm recoveries, CCTV footage and injured named accused; petition disposed with direction to decide bail per Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773; interim order discharged.

What did the court decide?

Principal prayer refused; writ petition disposed of with a direction that on the petitioner appearing before the court below and applying for bail, his bail application shall be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra); interim order, if any, discharged. ¶18

Arnav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 03.04.2026 (Case Crime No. 0199 of 2026) and proceedings arising therefrom against petitioner Arnav should be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of finally with a direction that if the petitioner appears before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application shall be decided in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The principal prayer in the writ petition is refused; no interference is warranted, the State having shown prima facie commission of the occurrence through arrests, recoveries of country-made firearms, CCTV footage and an injured named accused.

¶17

Key takeaways

Any interim order stands discharged.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Padam Narain Mishra, JJ.) disposed of a criminal misc. writ petition by Arnav challenging FIR dated 03.04.2026, Case Crime No. 0199 of 2026, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. On the State's statement that named accused Lucky Saini had sustained a firearm injury, three co-accused (Akhil Chauhan, Saurabh Kumar, Harsh Chaudhary) had been arrested, country-made firearms had been recovered, and the incident stood recorded in CCTV, the Court refused the principal prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the prayer and sought only a direction that his bail application be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, which the unopposed request was granted. Interim order, if any, discharged.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10141 of 2026

¶3

Arnav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ambikesh Srivastava	Kumar	Sharma,	Vimal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 49

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Surya Nath Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ambikesh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Petitioner- Arnav has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 03.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4 Deepak Pawaar, Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad and registered as Case Crime No. 0199 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad.

¶11

On the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. representing Staterespondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that in the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings, one person namely, the named accused- Lucky Saini has sustained firearm injury. Furthermore, during pendency of the investigation, three of the named accused namely, Akhil Chauhan, Saurabh Kumar and Harsh Chaudhary were arrested. On the pointing out of the

¶12

CRLP No. 10141 of 2026

¶13

¶14

arrested accused, recoveries of country-made firearms have also been made. Learned AGA further submits that it has come in the Case Diary that the incident giving rise to present criminal proceeding has also stands recorded in the CCTV installed near the place of occurrence. The complicity of present petitioner has also surfaced in the crime in question. On the above premise, the learned AGA would thus, submit that prima facie, the occurrence is proved. Apart from above, since there is an injured, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.

¶15

When confronted with above, 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 SCC 773 .

¶16

Learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 does not oppose the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶17

In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is, hereby, refused.

¶18

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

¶19

CRLP No. 10141 of 2026

¶20

¶21

law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil

¶22

(Supra).

¶23