Allahabad High Court
SURAJ GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Suraj Goswami under several provisions of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed innocence, stating his name appeared only in a co-accused's confessional statement and not in the FIR, and offered to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed, relying on CCTV footage identifying the applicant and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding that the material did not preclude bail and that the applicant’s antecedents and cooperation were satisfactory, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and specific conditions. The order also empowered the prosecution to seek cancellation if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite identification in CCTV footage and serious injuries to the victim.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role, as inferred from a co-accused’s confessional statement, warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 3(5), 351(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- CCTV evidence
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
- flight risk
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 1981 of 2026
Suraj Goswami
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Masoom Alam, Shivam Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharmaveer Singh, G.A., Suraj Kumar
Prajapati
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mithilesh
Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dharmveer Singh, learned counsel for
the informant, Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.
3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No. 355 of 2025 under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 109, 351(2), 117(2), 61(2) of B.N.S.,
Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau, with the prayer that in the event of arrest,
applicant may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the
applicant is not named in the first information report and his name was surfaced in
confessional statement of arrested co-accused person. It is further submitted that the
applicant has criminal history of eight cases which have been explained in bail
application as well as in supplementary affidavit. It was also submitted that applicant
undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted
anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the
investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail
and submits that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV footage and the injured
has received 12 injuries on his person and some injuries are grievous in nature.
5. As per first information report, two named and ten unknown persons are said to
have assaulted husband of the first informant. The victim has received multiple
injuries. The injured has not taken the name of the applicant in his statement. Name of
NABAIL No. 1981 of 2026
2
applicant has been surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-
accused and the applicant has not been assigned any specific role of assault. It is also
submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history.
6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation,
antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must
evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role
of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all
attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on
merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Suraj Goswami involved in the aforesaid
case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned, with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the
trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of
bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court
concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 18, 2026
Virendra
Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…