Harish Chahar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Harish Chahar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer in the writ petition refused; petition 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); interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 20.04.2026, registered as Case Crime No. 0048 of 2026 under Sections 74, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352 BNS at Police Station-Kagaraul, District-Agra, could be quashed at the instance of the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The principal prayer in the writ petition (challenge to the FIR) was refused, the learned counsel for the petitioner having fairly given it up after the State pointed out that the first informant had sustained injuries.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the Court concerned 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).

Key takeaways

Any interim order operating in favour of the petitioner stands discharged.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Padam Narain Mishra, JJ.), by order dated May 5, 2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10180 of 2026 (Harish Chahar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), dealt with a petition challenging FIR dated 20.04.2026, Case Crime No. 0048 of 2026, under Sections 74, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352 BNS, Police Station-Kagaraul, District-Agra, lodged by first informant Munni Devi (respondent-4). The learned A.G.A. submitted that the first informant had sustained injuries and that prima facie the occurrence stood proved; confronted with this, counsel for the petitioner fairly gave up the prayer in the writ petition, which the Court refused. The Court instead disposed of the petition 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 v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. Interim order, if any, was discharged.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10180 of 2026

Harish Chahar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anand Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 49

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

Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3.

2. Perused the record.

Petitioner-Harish Chahar has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4 Munni Devi and registered as Case Crime No. 0048 of 2026, under Sections 74, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352 BNS, Police Station-Kagaraul, District-Agra.

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 submits that the victim i.e. first informant has sustained injuries on her person. As such, prima-facie the occurrence is proved.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. However, 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 in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice shall better be served, in case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to Court concerned 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)

CRLP No. 10180 of 2026

2

10 SCC 773 .

Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

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

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3, upon perusal of record and considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with a direction to Court concerned 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) .

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

May 5, 2026

Vinay

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad