HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10167 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kashif Zaidi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Narendra @ Nagendra Singh Gurjar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. May 5, 2026 Israr CRLP No. 10167 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad