HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10188 of 2026 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1,2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner- Guljar Navi Ansari has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 17.4.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent-4 Ekbal Ahmad Ansari and registered as Case Crime No. 204 of 2026, under Section 333, 109 (1), 131, 352, 351(3), BNS, Police Station- Atrauli, District- Aligarh. 3. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents-1,2,3 submits that the incident giving rise to present writ petition, occurred on 16.4.2026. In the aforesaid incident, three persons namely, Iqbal, Ahmad and Rehana, sustained injuries. According to the learned A.G.A. in view of above the occurrence stands proved. Apart from above, the learned A.G.A. also contends that the statement of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value than an ordinary witness. The same can be discarded only on compelling reasons. However, upon perusal of pleadings raised in present writ petition no such compelling circumstance has emerged on record on the basis of which the statement of aforesaid injured can be discarded. To buttress his submissions, the learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above since prima Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Keshri, Ramanand Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mahendra Singh Guljar Navi Ansari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) facie the occurrence is proved, and three persons have sustained inijuries, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. 4. When confronted with above, the learne learned counsel for petitioner proceeded with the submissions. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up the challenge to the impugned FIR. He submits that interest of justice shall better be served, in case, a direction is issued by this court to Court below to consider 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. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2, 3 does not oppose the equitable submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioners. 6. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is refused. 7. Having hard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents, upon persual of record and considering the rival submissions urged by the learned counsel for parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that in case, petitioner appears before Court below and applies for bail then in that eventuality his bail application 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). 8. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. May 12, 2026 Arshad CRLP No. 10188 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad