Disposed¶23

Farhan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026CRLP/5568/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition by unnamed petitioner / prospective accused; challenge to FIR under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur (Case Crime No. 0040 of 2026); bail direction to Court below in light of Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; Allahabad High Court; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

Principal prayer refused; writ 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 considered in the light of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra); interim order, if any, stands vacated. ¶23

Farhan Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by a person who is not named in the FIR but is wanted in the case crime number (prospective accused) is maintainable. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition filed by the petitioner, though he is not named in the FIR, is maintainable and not liable to be dismissed on that ground, since he is wanted in the concerned case crime number and falls in the category of prospective accused.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The principal prayer in the writ petition was refused (having been fairly given up), and the petition was disposed of finally with a direction that if the petitioner appears before the Court below and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra); the interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.) in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5568 of 2026 challenging FIR dated 20.01.2026 (Case Crime No. 0040 of 2026, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur): Held that a writ petition filed by a person not named in the FIR is maintainable where he is wanted in the concerned case crime number and thus falls in the category of prospective accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly gave up the principal prayer, which was accordingly refused; the Court 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 considered in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Interim order, if any, stood vacated.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5568 of 2026

¶3

Farhan Qureshi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

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

¶8

Court No. - 49

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Shivam Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned AGA representing State respondents 1&2.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

CRLP No. 5568 of 2026

¶17

¶18

petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore he cannot maintain the present writ petition.

¶19

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 .

¶20

Learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1&2 does not oppose the aforesaid fair submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶21

We do not find any legal impediment for not accepting the fair submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is refused.

¶23

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).

¶24

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶25

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶26

April 20, 2026

¶27

Arif

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farhan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhanprasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjeev Kumar and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Narayan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Bharosi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jaheer Alam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others