Allahabad High Court
SATYENDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, with a direction that any bail application be decided by the lower court in line with the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.
Summary
Petitioner Satyendra Pratap Singh filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20.04.2026, which alleged offences under Sections 85, 105 and 123 of the IPC and was registered as a case of murder (Section 304 IPC). The State argued that the FIR prima facie established a death and that the High Court could not interfere, relying on Supreme Court precedent in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and a prior division‑bench order. The petitioner eventually withdrew his main relief but sought a direction that any bail application be decided according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court, agreeing with the State, refused the writ petition but issued a directive that the lower court, if approached for bail, must apply the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil. Consequently, the interim order was discharged and the petition was finally disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can interfere with an FIR registered under Section 304 IPC on the basis of a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief other than bail, given the prima facie existence of a death.
- Whether the lower court should decide the bail application in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 123, 304, 85
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR
- bail
- writ petition
- Section 304 IPC
- Supreme Court precedent
- interference
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10752 of 2026
Satyendra Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned
A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, the learned
counsel representing first informant-respondent-3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Satyendra Pratap Singh has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20.04.2026 lodged by first
informant-respondent-3 Kuldeep Singh and registered as Case Crime No. 152 of 2026,
under Sections 85, 105, 123 BNS, Police Station-Maharajpur, District-Kanpur Nagar
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 & 2 has raised a
preliminary objection by contending that on account of the death of Ruchi, the
criminal prosecution of petitioner has come into existence by way of impugned FIR.
He, therefore, contends that since the impugned FIR has been registered under Section
85 BNSS i.e. Section 304 IPC, therefore, prima-facie a death has taken place. The
issue as to whether, there is any mens-rea in the commission of crime in question or
the death has occurred on account of negligence on the part of petitioner, is such
question of fact, which cannot be decided simply on the basis of pleadings raised in
the FIR in the writ petition or the allegations made in the FIR.
5. At this juncture, the learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of Court to the
judgment of Supreme Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani
reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and further to the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26757 of 2017
(Prateek Garg Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), wherein the Division Bench, which
was dealing with an FIR arising out of an offence under Section 302 IPC dismissed
the writ petition by placing reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in
aforementioned judgment. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. for State-
CRLP No. 10752 of 2026
2
respondents thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ
petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner proceeded with his
submission.
7. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly gave up
the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition. It is, however, contended by
the learned counsel for petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
interest of justice shall better be served, in case, the present writ petition is disposed of
finally with a direction to Court concerned to decide the bail application of petitioners
in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773.
8. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 & 2 has no objection to the aforesaid
prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
9. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is refused.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-
respondents 1 & 2, upon perusal of record and considering the submissions urged by
the learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with
a direction to Court concerned that in case, petitioner appear before Court below and
applies for bail then his bail application shall be decided by Court concerned in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra).
11. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
May 12, 2026
Vinay
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…