HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10456 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.J. Akhtar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sonu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. May 14, 2026 YK CRLP No. 10456 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad