HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10752 of 2026 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- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, G.A. Satyendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 CRLP No. 10752 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad