HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8526 of 2025 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Dubey, Praveen Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Goriyank Tomar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 officer; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 11. 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. September 28, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 8526 of 2025 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad