Vishal Sharma vs State Of U P - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 611

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 611

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ
Vishal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of U P – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4398/2026

Important Points

An accused may seek anticipatory bail following an unsuccessful petition to quash an FIR, and such bail applications must be adjudicated on merits, independent of any observations made by the High Court during quashing proceedings.

Subject

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail/Quashing of FIR

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.191(2), S.115(2), S.352, S.351(3), S.126(2)

Headnote

The petitioner challenged an order of the High Court, which dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that the High Court's observations prejudiced their potential plea for anticipatory bail. The Court evaluated the request while upholding the High Court's initial refusal to quash the FIR. The primary issue was whether the High Court's observations in the order denying the quashing of the FIR would preclude the petitioner from seeking anticipatory bail from subordinate courts. The Court reasoned that the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for anticipatory bail, which shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the High Court's prior observations. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijay Kumar, Bharti Tyagi, Dalip Kumar Shantoshi, Vidhik Kumar, V. V. Purohit, Bhanu P. Gupta, V. Kumar
For the Respondents: Ruchira Goel, Sharanya

O R D E R

CHANDRESH Date: 2026.03.19 1 Reason:

1. The petitioner preferred a miscellaneous writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing of the FIR dated 25.8.2025 registered with the P.S. Qwarsi, District-Aligarh in Case Crime No.739/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS, 2023”), respectively.

2. The High Court declined to entertain the petition and accordingly dismissed it.

3. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before us with the present petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR referred to above and with the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order no court would grant him anticipatory bail. 5. We are of the view that we should not interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. If the accused is apprehending arrest, he may pray for anticipatory bail. If any such application is preferred, the Court concerned shall look into the same on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.

6. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.