The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has refused to quash an FIR registered against a man accused of dowry death and related offences. However, while disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the subordinate court to decide the petitioner’s bail application in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding arrest and bail procedures.
Background
The petitioner, Saddam Husain, approached the High Court through a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the First Information Report (FIR) dated July 25, 2025. The FIR was lodged by the first informant, Enuddin (Respondent No. 4), and registered as Case Crime No. 0207 of 2025 at Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj.
The petitioner was booked under Sections 304-B (Dowry death), 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Arguments of the Parties
During the proceedings before a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Padam Narain Mishra, the counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shabista Parveen, initially argued against the validity of the FIR.
However, the judgment notes that “after some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition.” Instead, the counsel submitted that the interest of justice would be served if the Court issued a direction to the court below to decide the petitioner’s bail application in light of the law established by the Apex Court.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents, did not oppose the modified prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Upon perusing the record and considering the submissions, the Court formally refused the primary prayer to quash the FIR.
Regarding the alternative request for a directed bail consideration, the Bench observed the “bona fide submissions urged by the counsel for the petitioner” and decided to dispose of the petition with specific instructions.
The Court held:
“this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with a direction 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).”
The reference was made to the landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773, which provides comprehensive guidelines on the categories of offences and the requisite procedures for granting bail to avoid unnecessary arrests.
The Court further clarified that any interim order previously operating in the matter stands discharged.
Case Details
Case Title: Saddam Husain Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.- 9582 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajeev Misra, Justice Padam Narain Mishra
Counsel for Petitioner: Chaman Aara, Shabista Parveen
Counsel for Respondent: G.A.
Date: May 6, 2026
