Dismissed¶22

Bhoora Paswan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026CRLP/10391/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against F.I.R. dismissed; cross F.I.R.s from both sides; same transaction; res gestae; Section 6 Evidence Act; Section 4 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; aggressor question left to investigation/trial; sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 325 BNS; Case Crime No. 095 of 2026 and Case Crime No. 094 of 2026; Police Station Sadh, Kanpur Nagar; Bhoora Paswan; Karan Gautam; interim order vacated; Allahabad High Court; May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; interim order if any stands vacated. ¶22

Bhoora Paswan and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10391 of 2026

¶3

Bhoora Paswan And 7 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shailesh Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 49

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard Mr. Shailesh Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

Petitioner- Bhoora Paswan And 7 Others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 2.4.2026, lodged by first informant Karan Gautam and registered as Case Crime No. 095 of 2026, under sections 191 (2), 115(2) 351(3) and 325 BNS, Police Station- Sadh District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶14

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 1.4.2026, a belated F.I.R. dated 2.4.2026 was lodged by Bhoora (Petitioner-1) and was registered as Case Crime No. 094 of 2026, under sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Sadh, DistrictCommissionerate, Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., the timing of occurrence is shown as 18:30 hrs and four persons namely, surajdeen, Mahendra, Ramdeen and Gore have been nominated as named accused, whereas three unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶15

It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that in respect of the same incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 1.7.2026, another F.I.R. dated 2.4.2026 was lodged by first informant/respondent-3, Karan Gautam and was registered as Case Crime No. 094 of 2026, under sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Sadh, District- Commissionerate,

¶16

CRLP No. 10391 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. the timing of occurrence is shown as 18:00 hrs and the petitioners herein have been nominated as named accused.

¶19

On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents-1 and 2 submits that prima facie the occurrence is proved, as cross, F.I.Rs have been lodged from both the sides. According to the learned A.G.A. though there is difference of about 30 minutes in the time of occurrence in both the F.I.R.s. however, by reason of Section 6 of Evidence Act, now section 4 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Rule of res-gate shall come into play. Both the incidents shall have to be be treated as part of same transaction. In view of above, the preliminary issue which is required to be considered is as to who is the aggressor. This issue can be considered during the course of investigation or by court below at the time of trial. Moreover, the same cannot be dealt with in isolation i.e. in the absence of petitioner. In view of above, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no case for indulgence by this Court is made out in present writ petition.

¶20

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondent-1, upon persual of record and considering the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ petition, as noted above, coupled with the fact that the same could not dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioners with reference to the record at this stage, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to interfere in the present writ petition. As a result this writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

Interim order if any stands vacated.

¶24

May 6, 2026 Arshad

¶25

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhoora Paswan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoora Paswan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharda and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Arnav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhavendra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akeel and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others