GORIYANK TOMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8526 of 2025

Goriyank Tomar
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Manoj Kumar Dubey, Praveen Mishra
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.78 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 109, 115(2),
351(2) & 352 B.N.S., Police Station - Mawana, District Meerut, 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 him. A general role has been assigned to all the accused
persons, including the applicant. It is further submitted that the informant
alleged that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. However, no
injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon was noted by the doctor at the time
of preparation of the medical report of the injured. It is further contended
that five injuries were noticed by the doctor, but the injured did not sustain
any fracture on his person. The injuries are neither dangerous to life nor
grievous in nature. However, the doctor opined that injury no. 2 appears to
be grievous in nature. As per the injury report of the injured, injury no. 2 was
a red abraded contusion, 3 cm × 2 cm, on the right side of the forehead.
Traumatic swelling all around the injury was present, and this injury was
kept under observation and an X-ray was advised. However, as per the X-ray
report, no fracture was noted on the person of the injured. It is further
                                                        NABAIL No. 8526 of 2025
                                 2


contended that earlier an FIR was lodged by the applicant against the present
informant on 03.02.2025, which was registered as Case Crime No. 38 of
2025 under Sections 352, 351(2), and 115(2) of the B.N.S. As a counterblast
to the said FIR dated 03.02.2025, the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case on 28.02.2025 on account of inter se enmity between the
parties. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 26.02.2025. The
delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained by the
prosecution. The applicant was earlier implicated in four cases, which have
been explained in paragraph no. 24 of the affidavit. No charge-sheet has
been submitted in this case, and the investigation is still going on. The
applicant was enlarged on interim anticipatory bail on 17.10.2025, and he is
cooperating in the investigation. He has not misused the liberty of interim
anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or 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 investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

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

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
                                                        NABAIL No. 8526 of 2025
                                 3


to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principle 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 on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Goriyank Tomar, involved in the
aforesaid case, he 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 Station House Officer of the
police station concerned or the court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 8526 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    officer; and

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

                                    11. 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 28, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad