SHYAMVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 5997 of 2026

Shyamveer
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.536 of 2025, under Sections 281, 191(2), 191(3), 352,
115(2), 109 of BNS, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura, with a
prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he
has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are
trying to arrest the applicant. The applicant and 5 other co-accused
alongwith 2 unknown persons, have been nominated in the FIR dated
24.10.2025. The general and omnibus allegations have been levelled
against the applicant and other co-accused, except co-accused Devendra.
It is alleged in the FIR that Smt. Manorama, mother of the informant, and
several other persons sustained injuries in the incident apart from injured
Vinod Kumar Pathak. However, during the course of investigation, the
other persons admitted that they were not medically examined since the
other injured Vinod Kumar Pathak was admitted in the hospital. Apart
from the injury report of injured Vinod Kumar Pathak, there is no other
injury report on record. The injured Vinod Kumar Pathak sustained three
injuries on his person. The first injury was a contusion on the right side of
the forehead; the second injury was a lacerated wound at right side of the
                                                       NABAIL No. 5997 of 2026
                                2


face in front of the ear; the third injury was a contusion swelling over the
upper eyelid of the right eye. The injuries were caused by a hard and blunt
object. The doctor opined that the injuries are dangerous to life. It is
nowhere alleged by the prosecution that all the injuries were caused by
the applicant. It is further contended that the arrest of the applicant has
been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
04.12.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27924 of 2025. He was
not arrested during the course of investigation. Now, the chargesheet has
been submitted in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation of the applicant. The applicant has no other
previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly
contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall
appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has also been
stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial, and shall abide by
all the conditions that may be imposed by the court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

5. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding
     principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under
     Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or
     the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has
     to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in
     accordance with the procedure laid down under Section
     173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the
                                                        NABAIL No. 5997 of 2026
                                 3


     Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a
     process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks
     to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is
     required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section
     87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of
     due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in
     sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of
     caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general
     principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite
     observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in
     the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose
     custody was not required during the period of investigation. In
     such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released
     on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself
     sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale
     has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged
     and free for many years and has not even been arrested during
     investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be
     incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We
     could not agree more with this."

8. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of
accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of
the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my
view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of
trial in the matter.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shyamveer involved in
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 5997 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
                                    trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties
                                    each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned;

                                    (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
                                    concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

                                    (iii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; and

                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad