Allahabad High Court
NARENDRA @ NAGENDRA SINGH GURJAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot interfere with the factual investigation of the FIR but may dispose of the writ and direct that any bail applications be decided per the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil.
Summary
Petitioners Narendra @ Nagendra Singh Gurjar and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 challenging an FIR dated 19‑04‑2026 registered under Sections 306, 352 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. They contended that a transfer order issued by one of them in the discharge of official duties negated the elements of abetment of suicide under Section 306 and sought the FIR’s quashment. The State, represented by the Attorney General, argued that factual issues of abetment and mens rea could only be decided during investigation or trial and the High Court could not interfere. The petitioners also requested a direction that any bail applications be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court refused the prayer to set aside the FIR, disposed of the writ, and directed that bail applications, if filed, be considered by the lower court following the Satender Kumar Antil precedent. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
Issues considered
- Can the High Court entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash an FIR on the ground of lack of abetment under Section 306 IPC?
- Does a transfer order issued in the discharge of official duty eliminate the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC?
- Should the Court direct the lower court to consider bail applications in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 306, 351, 352
Subjects
- FIR
- Section 306 IPC
- abatement of suicide
- Article 226
- writ petition
- bail
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10167 of 2026
Narendra @ Nagendra Singh Gurjar And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kashif Zaidi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kashif Zaidi, the learned counsel for petitioners and the
learned A.G.A. for State-respondents- 1 to 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners-Narendra @ Nagendra Singh Gurjar And 2 Others have
approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
challenging the FIR dated 19.04.2026 lodged by first informant-
respondent-4, Smt. Madhuri Singh and registered as Case Crime No. 0154
of 2026, under Sections 108, 352 351(2) BNS, Police Station-Premnagar,
District-Jhansi.
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents- 1
to 3 submits that the impugned FIR has been registered under Section 108
BNS i.e. Section 306 IPC. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A.
submits that this Court in exercise of limited jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the factual issue as to
whether there is no abetment, instigation or conspiracy on the part of
petitioners leading to the commission of crime in question and secondly
no mens rea can be gathered from the conduct of petitioners leading to the
crime in question. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would thus
submit that since aforesaid issues of fact are such issues which can be
decided only during the course of investigation/ trial and therefore, no
interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.
CRLP No. 10167 of 2026
2
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners
proceeded with his submissions. It is basically urged by the learned
counsel for petitioners that since the transfer order was passed by
petitioner- 1 in exercise of official duty, therefore, none of the ingredients
constituting an offence under Section 306 now Section 108 can be said to
be made out against petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, we are afraid to the aforesaid submissions.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioners however submits
that interest of justice shall better be served in case the present writ
petition is disposed of finally with a direction to court concerned to
consider the bail applications of petitioners in the light of law laid down
by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents- 1 to 3 does not
oppose the equitable submissions urged by the learned counsel for
petitioners.
9. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ
petition is refused.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A.
representing State-respondents 1 to 4, upon perusal of record and
considering the rival submissions urged by the learned counsel for the
parties as noted herein above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with
a direction that in case, petitioners appear before Court concernd and
apply for bail then in that eventuality their bail applications shall be
considered by Court below in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
11. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 5, 2026
Israr
Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…