Disposed¶12

Sumit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 21 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026CRPIL/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL disposed of with liberty; petitioner unaware of parallel Supreme Court proceedings; Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021 In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail referred; direction to verify pendency of similar proceedings before filing PIL; simplification of relief clause advised; supplementary affidavit taken on record; bench Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to ascertain pending proceedings/orders/judgments on the same issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court and, if the cause still remains, to prefer a fresh PIL with a simplified relief clause; supplementary affidavit taken on record. ¶12

Sumit Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 21 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's PIL raises issues already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021) or before this Court, so that the petitioner ought first to ascertain such proceedings and orders before pressing this PIL.

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner was found to be unaware of the pendency of Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the grant of bail, and was directed to first find out about any pending proceedings and orders/judgments before the Supreme Court or this Court involving the same issues.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

If, after ascertaining such pending proceedings and orders, the cause still remains, the petitioner may prefer a PIL, ensuring the relief clause is not phrased as complexly as in the present writ petition.

¶11

Key takeaways

With the said liberty, the PIL was disposed of.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 1 (Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.), disposed of Criminal Writ - Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2026 filed by Sumit Pandey, a law student, against the State of U.P. and others. Noting that the petitioner was unaware of the pendency of Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021 'In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail' before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court directed him to first find out about any proceedings pending before the Supreme Court or this Court involving the same issues, along with the orders/judgments passed therein, and only if the cause still remained to prefer a PIL, ensuring that the relief clause was not framed as complexly as in the present petition. The supplementary affidavit of the petitioner was taken on record. With the liberty aforesaid, the PIL was disposed of on February 10, 2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 1 of 2026

Sumit Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 21 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Eshan Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 1

¶8

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶9

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard Shri Eshan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶11

3. The petitioner, who is a law student, has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned therein, however, he is not aware about pendency of proceedings before Hon'ble the Supreme Court bearing Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021 In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail . He should first of all find out about proceedings either before Hon'ble the Supreme Court or before this Court which may be pending involving the same issues as raised herein as also the orders/judgments passed therein, then, if the cause still remains, should prefer a PIL and while doing so he shall ensure that the relief clause is not as complex as has been phrased in the present writ petition.

¶12

4. With the liberty aforesaid, we dispose of this PIL.

¶13

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶14

February 10, 2026

¶15

R.K.P.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sumit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 21 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 21 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Pal vs District Magistrate Barabanki and 3 Others

Ashutosh Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others

Jitendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Romila Verma vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Santhan Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence Govt. of India New Delhi and 3 Others vs Jc 462198 Ex Nb Sub Clk (Sd) Dinesh Singh Parihar of 16 Maratha Li C/O 56 Apo

Sudeep Kumar Shukla and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical, Health and Family Welfare and 2 Others