The court emphasized that arrests can be made when a FIR names an individual, and anticipatory bail is inappropriate when a person does not comply with judicial orders.

JUDGMENT :

(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)

Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has filed into the Court the report of the Circle Officer dated 16.11.2025 and a copy of another report addressed by the Circle Officer, Ramnagar, District Nainital to the Joint Director (Law).

3. The petitioner, in the above petition, has sought for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 23-10-2025 being FIR No. 0382 of 2025, for the offences punishable under section 109 & 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned first information report dated 23-10-2025 being FIR No. 0382 of 2025, for the offences punishable under section 109 & 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).

iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. From a reading of the prayer, it is apparent that the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR itself and the second relief, sought for, is not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

5. Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) reads as under:-

“109. Attempt to murder.

(1) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

When any person offending under sub-section (1) is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life.”

6. Section 190 of BNS reads as under:-

“190. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in persecution of common object.-If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

7. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner received information about the illegal transportation of cow- meat; that he immediately informed the police and the forest officers at 09:05 A.M. and 09:07 A.M. and; that he being an animal lover, he rushed to the spot and states that he started live Facebook telecast of the incident by 09:12 A.M. It is his case that the video would demonstrate that he is requesting to the mob and trying to placate the angry mob not to assault the victim, i.e. the driver of the vehicle in which the meat was being transported; that he being an informant himself and he having attempted to placate and save the victim, the act of naming him