A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, has granted interim protection from coercive action to several Forest Range Officers in a case involving alleged firing and the disappearance of a man. The Court also directed the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, to conduct an inquiry into contradictory affidavits filed before the Court regarding the recording of a key witness’s statement.
The petitioners, who are forest range officers, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR registered against them under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST Act, as well as an order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich, directing the registration of the FIR. The High Court, after hearing the parties, ruled that the matter requires consideration, granted interim protection to the petitioners pending further investigation, and ordered a high-level police inquiry into the filing of conflicting affidavits.
Background of the Case
The dispute stems from an incident in August 2025. According to the petitioners, on August 14, 2025, one Mukti Narayan was arrested for the illegal cutting of trees, while six other persons absconded, leading to the lodging of a range case.
Conversely, Respondent No. 4 (the complainant) alleged that his father went with Mukti Narayan on August 13, 2025, to see their agricultural field. While returning by boat, they were allegedly apprehended, beaten, and fired upon by forest department employees near the Ghagra river. Respondent No. 4 filed a complaint on August 18, 2025, and subsequently moved an application under Section 173(3) of the BNSS before the Special Judge.
Mukti Narayan, who was released on bail by the High Court in October 2025, later filed an affidavit stating that forest employees indiscriminately fired upon him and his friend Rambali. He claimed Rambali sustained a gunshot injury, his body was vanished by the officials, and Mukti Narayan was arrested and threatened. Based on the proceedings under Section 173(4) BNSS, the Special Judge directed the registration of the impugned FIR (Case Crime No. 0002/2026).
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashank Tilhari, argued that the FIR was based on a “wrong and concocted story.” He highlighted that Mukti Narayan had taken contradictory stands regarding his arrest in different courts. Furthermore, he argued that since the petitioners are public servants (Forest Range Officers), the Special Judge could not have directed the lodging of the FIR without prior sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS, 2023. To support this, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Anil Kumar and others versus M.K. Aiyappa and Another; 2023 10 SCC 705. The counsel also pointed out a severe contradiction regarding whether the Investigating Officer (Circle Officer) had recorded Mukti Narayan’s statement under Section 180 BNSS on February 13, 2026, as claimed by the complainant, but denied by the Circle Officer in his own affidavit.
For Respondent No. 4 (Complainant): Counsel Sri Ashish Raman Mishra vehemently opposed the petition, stating that the complainant’s father remains missing and the police have failed to locate him since the FIR was lodged on January 4, 2026. He countered the geographical arguments regarding the distance of the agricultural field, asserting it is adjacent to the forest. Regarding the prior sanction, he argued it is required at the stage of trial, not the FIR stage, as the alleged acts were not in the discharge of official duties. He placed reliance on Inspector of Police and Another versus Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Another; (2015) 13 SCC 87.
For the State: The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) supported the FIR. He stated that sanction is required at the trial stage and cited Robert Lalchungnunga Chngthu alias R.L. Chongthu versus State of Bihar; 2025 SCC 2511. The AGA also clarified that the Investigating Officer had attempted to record Mukti Narayan’s statement, but he was not present, and a notice under Section 179 of BNS 2023 had been served to his brother. He also noted that the Circle Officer had recommended a preliminary inquiry due to contradictory reports.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench observed that “The matter requires consideration.”
The Court took serious note of the conflicting affidavits submitted before it regarding the investigative process. The Court observed the discrepancies between the affidavit filed by the complainant and Mukti Narayan (claiming the statement was recorded on 13.02.2026) and the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer/Investigating Officer denying the same.
Decision
The Court granted time for the State to file a counter affidavit and the petitioners to file a rejoinder.
Granting interim relief to the forest officers, the Court ordered: “Till the next date of listing or any incriminating evidence is found against the petitioners, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.2.2026 and continue to co-operate in investigation.”
Addressing the issue of the conflicting affidavits, the Court directed: “It is further provided that in view of the contradictions in regard to the recording of statements of Mukti Narayan on 13.02.2026 in the affidavit filed by the complainant, Mukti Narayan and the Circle Officer/Investigating Officer, the matter shall be placed before the Senior Superintendent / Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for an inquiry into the matter and submit a report by the next date.”
The Court also instructed the Investigating Officer “to investigate the matter fairly and impartially expeditiously,” and advised the AGA to guide the concerned officer appropriately regarding the bail obtained by Mukti Narayan and the various affidavits he had filed.
The matter has been listed for the week commencing March 16, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Abdul Salam And Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. And Others
- Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.989 of 2026
- Coram: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
- Counsel for Petitioners: Shashank Tilhari
- Counsel for Respondents: G.A., Ashish Raman Mishra
