Salman Tomar and Another Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8939 of 2026

Salman Tomar And Another

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Kumar Dubey	Dubey,	Chandra Bhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2026, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., Police Station Phase-II, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The application of the applicants before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, vide order dated 06.02.2026 and the applicants are languishing in jail since 25.01.2026.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the bail plea vehemently argues that the applicants are entirely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR in question has been lodged nominating the applicants and four other coaccused persons who are alleged to have run away alleging that while making routine check of suspicious vehicles and getting information from police informer that two persons in a stolen vehicles are rooming to steal vehicles. On approaching the stolen vehicle bearing registration No. DLILAD0637 white coloured Bolero Maxi truck the applicant alighted from the vehicle in question and began to run away but were apprehended by the Police Team. The applicants on being arrested revealed that they along with the co-accused persons had carried out theft of vehicles seven days ago and

¶10

BAIL No. 8939 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

on their pointing out two other stolen vehicles and several other materials were recovered from the go-down.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that the complicity of the applicants in the commission of the crime is being established merely on the basis of their confessional statements and the planted recovery of the vehicles and other materials from the go-down. It is argued that there is no independent witness to be alleged recovery and only the police personnel were present at the time of their arrest and recovery. It is also argued that the provisions of Sections 105 of BNSS and Rule 18 of the U.P. BNS Rules 2024 have not been complied with inasmuch as the video recording has not been made and the same has also not been sent to the magistrate within 48 hours. The arrest and recovery thus is per se illegal and the applicants are entitled to be released on bail forthwith. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shadab Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2026 SCC Online All 5 to buttress the submission. It is also submitted that the Applicant No. 1 is credited with 8 criminal cases which have been duly explained in Para 18 of the bail application while the Applicant No. 2 has 12 cases to his credit which too have been duly explained in the said para. It is next argued that the applicants are not flight risk and shall cooperate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail is prayed for.

¶14

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and primafacie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the accused-applicants, Salman Tomar and Bhanu Chaudhary, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following

¶18

BAIL No. 8939 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

conditions:

¶21

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

¶22

The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶23

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶24

The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless their personal appearance are exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶25

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail.

¶26

April 15, 2026

¶27

pks

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman Tomar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Tomar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shadab vs State of U.P.

Sharad Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Saini Vs State of U.P.

Smt Lallo Devi @ Chandrawati and 2 Others Vs Subhash Kumar Patel and 5 Others

Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Johri and Another Vs State of U.P.