The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation is “sometimes misinterpret[ed]” by district courts and advocates, leading to confusion in bail proceedings.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while granting bail in a case (Crl. Misc. Bail App. No. 33908 of 2025) where the court found “prima facie” negligence by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and a physician in downgrading a grievous injury. The court noted this as one of “numerous instances” where police misuse the Antil directive by filing chargesheets under lesser sections.
Background of the Observation
The court was hearing a bail application for Krishna Alias Kishna, accused in a case under various sections of the BNS. The case record revealed that a CT scan of the victim from May 3, 2025, showed a “comminuted depressed fracture” of the skull. However, a subsequent X-ray on May 31, 2025, reported “no bony injury,” a finding the High Court termed “absolutely improbable” and “manipulated.”
The I.O., Mr. Faisal Khan, subsequently filed a chargesheet under Section 308 IPC (punishable up to 7 years) based on the “incorrect X-ray report,” despite the CT scan suggesting a more serious offence under Section 307 IPC, which is “on the vital part.”
Court’s Analysis of ‘Satender Antil’ Misinterpretation
The High Court linked this police conduct directly to a misunderstanding of the Satender Kumar Antil judgment, which laid down guidelines for bail, particularly for offences with punishments up to seven years.
The court observed, “It is relevant to mention that district courts and advocates some times misinterpret the judgement of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.”
The judgment stated that the court “has encountered numerous instances where police authorities, in an attempt to misuse this directive, have intentionally manipulated the injury reports and other evidence gathered during investigations. They file charge sheets under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307, which results in a lesser charge punishable by up to seven years.”
To clarify the law, Justice Deshwal quoted the 2021 Antil judgment, emphasizing that the Apex Court’s guidelines for ‘Category A’ cases (up to 7 years) were for deciding bail after the filing of the final police report (charge sheet) and not for bail applications during the investigation.
The High Court also cited Paragraph 5 of the Antil judgment, which explicitly states that the guidelines are not absolute. The court noted: “A bail application may be rejected if the accused has not cooperated during the investigation. Additionally, if the court believes that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, or if further investigation or potential recovery is needed, the bail may also be denied.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in the same case ((2022) 10 SCC 51), which directed investigating authorities and magistrates to comply with the arrest procedures laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.
Praise for Lower Court Judge
In this context, the High Court praised the “courage” of the Incharge Sessions Judge of Firozabad, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, “who, after carefully examining the available medical report, had the courage to reject the bail application of the applicant. This decision was made despite the fact that the offense was incorrectly classified as punishable by up to seven years.” The lower court judge had “thoughtfully considered the evidence in the case diary, including the CT scan report.”
Decision on Bail and Other Directions
While noting the serious lapses in the investigation, the High Court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, Krishna Alias Kishna. The court reasoned that the allegations were “general in nature,” no specific role in causing the grievous injury was attributed to the applicant, the charge sheet had been filed, and the applicant had “clean antecedents.”
However, due to the “prima facie” negligence, the court:
- Imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the retired physician, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri, for ignoring the CT scan report.
- Directed the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, to conduct an enquiry into the negligence of I.O. Mr. Faisal Khan and “take appropriate action.”
- Directed the Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of the order to the Director, J.T.R.I. (Judicial Training and Research Institute) “to inform judicial officers about the ratio of Satender Kumar Antil case.”
