HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10171 of 2026 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Ambresh Kumar, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent- 4 by filing his Vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners-Anchal Vishwakrma And Another have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 17.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Shanti Yadav and registered as Case Crime No. 80 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352 BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) va and 3(2)v of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-Walterganj, District-Basti. 4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents- 1 to 3 submits that in the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings two persons namely, Raju and Rajmani Yadav have sustained injuries on their person. While injured Raju has sustained four injuries on his person, the another injured Rajmani Yadav has sustained three injures on his person. The injuries sustained by the injured Rajmani Yadav are grievous in nature as, he has been referred to higher centre for treatment. 5. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. would thus submit that prima facie the occurrence is proved. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that since there are statements of two injured eye witnesses, therefore the occurrence cannot be doubted. Further more the statement of an injured eye witness has higher evidentiary value than an ordinary witness in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Manjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632. The statement of an injured eye witness can be discarded only on compelling reason. Referring to the body of writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Anchal Vishwakrma And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petition, the learned A.G.A. would contend that no such pleadings have been raised on behalf of petitioners on the basis of which the statement of the injured eye witness can be discarded by this Court. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners proceeded with his submission. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly gave up the challenge to the impugned FIR. He submits that interest of justice shall better be served, in case, present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction Court concerned to consider the bail application of petitioners in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773. 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 do not oppose the equitable submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioners. 8. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is refused. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 upon perusal of record, and considering the review submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is noted above this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that in case, petitioners appear before Court below and apply for bail then in that eventuality their bail applications shall be considered by Court below in the light of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra). 10. However, court below which considering the bail application of petitioner- 1 Anchal Vishwakrma, who is a lady shall be judged by the provisions contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C. now Section 480 BNSS. 11. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. May 5, 2026 Israr CRLP No. 10171 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad