Allahabad High Court
SONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court refused to quash the FIR and directed the lower court to consider the petitioner’s bail application in accordance with the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.
Summary
Petitioner Sonu filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an FIR dated 21-04-2026, registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that there was no instigation, conspiracy, abetment or mens rea on his part. The State opposed the petition, contending that the High Court cannot determine the merits of the FIR or the existence of criminal intent and therefore cannot quash the prosecution. After hearing, the petitioner withdrew his original prayer and instead sought a direction that the lower court consider his bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State had no objection to this amended request. The Court refused the original prayer to quash the FIR and disposed of the writ petition, directing that any bail application by the petitioner be decided by the trial court following the precedent set by the Satender Kumar Antil case.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 306 IPC on the ground of lack of instigation, conspiracy, abetment or mens rea.
- Whether the petitioner’s bail application should be decided by the lower court in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 226
- Indian Penal Code — s. 306
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- FIR
- Section 306 IPC
- Article 226
- Quash of FIR
- Bail
- Supreme Court precedent
- Writ Petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10456 of 2026
Sonu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.J. Akhtar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.J. Akhtar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2.
2. Perused the record.
4. Petitioner-Sonu has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 21.04.2026
lodged by first informant-respondent-3, Chandra Prakash Srivastava and
registered as Case Crime No. 0085 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS,
Police Station-Sevarahi, District-Kushinagar.
5. At the very outset, the learned AG.A. representing State/respondents 1
and 2 in opposition to present writ petition has raised a preliminary
objection by contending that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged under
Section 108 BNS i.e. Section 306 I.P.C. On the above premise, the
learned A.G.A. submits that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot conclusivly conclude that
as per the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the pleadings raised in present
writ petition, no instigation, conspiracy or abetment can be inferred
against petitioner. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A that apart
from above, it can also not be conclusively concluded that there is no
mens-rea in the conduct of petitioner leading to the crime in question.
Since aforesaid findings cannot be returned by this Court, therefore, it
cannot be held that petitioner is innocent and therefore criminal
prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be
quashed by this Court. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court
CRLP No. 10456 of 2026
2
in present writ petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner
proceeded with his submissions. However, after some arguments, the
learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up the prayer prayed for by
means of present writ petition. He submits that interest of justice shall
better be served, in case the present writ petition is disposed of finally
with a direction to court below to conclude the bail application of
petitioner 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.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2 has no
objection to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for
petitioner.
8. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ
petition is refused.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AG.A.
representing State/respondents 1 and 2, upon perusal of record and
considering the submissions urged by he learned counsel for parties, as
noted herein above, we dispose of this writ petition finally with a
direction that in case, petitioner appears before Court below and applies
for bail then in that eventuality, the bail application of petitioner shall be
considered by Court below in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
10. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 14, 2026
YK
Digitally signed by :-
YASHWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…