Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Asking Police to Recall Its Own Bail Order, Imposes Rs 50,000 Costs

A Division Bench called a PIL seeking mandamus against police to recall its own bail and sentence-suspension order, and to shift a criminal appeal to the MP/MLA Court, "shocking".

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Lal Chand Yadav, who sought a mandamus directing the State of U.P. and three police officers to recall two orders passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court—an order granting bail and a subsequent order suspending a sentence—in a pending criminal appeal arising from a Section 302 IPC conviction. The petitioner also wanted the appeal transferred to the jurisdiction of the MP/MLA Court. A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar found both prayers untenable and dismissed the petition on June 25, 2026, imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Registrar General within fifteen days.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petition arose out of Criminal Appeal No. 7280 of 2022, filed against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in a case under Section 302 IPC. On 13.08.2025, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to respondent no. 5 in that appeal. A subsequent order dated 27.08.2025, passed by the same Division Bench, modified the earlier bail order and suspended the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

Lal Chand Yadav approached the High Court through this Criminal Misc. PIL, asking the Court to direct the State of U.P., the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, the Station House Officer of P.S. Shahganj in District Jaunpur, and the Station House Officer of P.S. Phoolpur in District Azamgarh, to recall both orders—the bail order of 13.08.2025 and the sentence-suspension order of 27.08.2025. He additionally sought a direction that Criminal Appeal No. 7280 of 2022 be sent for hearing before the MP/MLA Court instead of continuing before the High Court.

The Legal Issue Before the Bench

The Bench framed the core problem at the outset. The relief sought was, in the Court’s words, “outrageous”, yet it noted that it remains “the duty of the Court to consider any matter brought before it, whatever be the cause of action and whatever the relief”. Two distinct legal questions arose from the prayers made. First, whether police and executive authorities could be directed by mandamus to recall an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court itself. Second, whether a criminal appeal pending before the High Court against a Sessions Court conviction could be transferred to the MP/MLA Court, a forum meant to try cases against public representatives.

The Bench was careful to note that it could not examine the merits of whatever grievance the petitioner may have had regarding the bail granted to respondent no. 5, because of “the kind of jurisdiction that he has invoked and the relief he has sought”.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Court held that the prayer to direct police authorities to recall an order of the High Court's own Division Bench was legally impossible on its face. The bail order and the sentence-suspension order were both passed by the Division Bench in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over a criminal appeal. Police officers and the State government have no institutional capacity to recall or undo a judicial order of the High Court; only the High Court itself, through review, recall, or a higher forum, could alter such an order.

The Bench observed that the petition appeared to reflect a declining general awareness of basic legal concepts, remarking that “understanding of the law is at an all-time low”. It expressed concern that the petition had been filed through counsel, from whom the presumption is that raw facts are honed into a legally presentable case, yet the prayer as drafted was one that “does not require a profound training in the law” to recognise as absurd.

On the second prayer, the Bench explained the limited role of the MP/MLA Court. These are establishments within the Court of Sessions, specifically assigned and notified to hear cases against public representatives. A criminal appeal before the High Court, by contrast, is preferred against an order of conviction passed by the Court of Sessions itself. The Bench found there was no legal mechanism by which a pending High Court appeal could be sent down to the MP/MLA Court, since that Court is itself a Sessions Court and cannot sit in appellate review of another Sessions Court's conviction, let alone receive a matter already pending in appeal before the High Court.

Taking both prayers together, the Bench recorded that they were “so shocking that we are of opinion that these do not deserve even the contempt of this Court”.

What Directions Followed

Having found the petition legally untenable on both limbs, the Bench turned to the question of consequence. It noted that the petitioner appeared to have prevailed upon his two counsel to bring such a petition before the Court, and that he could not be permitted to walk away unscathed after invoking the writ jurisdiction in this manner.

The Bench accordingly dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 recoverable from the petitioner. The costs were directed to be deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court within fifteen days. The order specifies that if the costs are not deposited within that period, the Registrar General shall take immediate steps to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Once received, the costs are to be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority without delay.

Order

The petition, Criminal Misc. Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2026, was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 against the petitioner Lal Chand Yadav. The Bench directed that the order be placed before the Registrar General by Monday, 29.06.2026. The order was signed by Justice Arun Kumar and Justice J.J. Munir, dated June 25, 2026.