HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7985 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the applicants after rejecting their anticipatory bail application by the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Jaunpur seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Rajbali Chauhan got a first information report lodged on 26.08.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 105 B.N.S. against Umashankar Chauhan and Samashankar Chauhan alleging inter alia that on 26.08.2025 at about 08 P.M., his nephew's wife Geeta Devi aged about 33 years went towards the fields. The farm of Rajendra Chauhan was surrounded by wires, in which the applicants- Umashankar Chauhan and Samashankar Chauhan applied electricity, causing the electricity to flow through exposed wire. Due to which, Geeta Devi got electrocuted and died. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that death of Geeta Devi is an accidental death. The applicants had no knowledge and intention, hence they cannot be blamed. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and another versus State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520, it is submitted that at the most, the case of prosecution would be for the offence under Section 125 BNS or 106A BNS. Lastly, it is submitted that applicants have an apprehension of imminent arrest Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Imran Ali, Murtuza Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rituraj Singh, Vinay Singh Rajput, Vishal Jaiswal Umashankar Chauhan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and in case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty. 5-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants by contending that applicants deliberately applied electricity, causing the electricity to flow through exposed wire. 6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicants are sons of Rajendra Chauhan. The allegation of the prosecution that father of the applicants surrounded his field by wire, in which the applicants applied electricity, causing the electricity to flow through exposed wire. Due to which, Geeta Devi got electrocuted and died. Whether the such act of the applicants was deliberate with any ulterior motive or not is a subject matter of investigation. Hence no finding can be recorded on merit in this regard at this stage by this Court. So far as judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther (supra) relied upon on behalf of the applicants is concerned, it is relevant to mention that there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court but the said case is distinguishable on facts and stage of proceeding. This Court is of the view that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 7-It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicants to flee from justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 8-In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicants as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is made out in favour of the applicants. 9-Accordingly, this application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is rejected NABAIL No. 7985 of 2025 2 . 10-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. October 10, 2025 Shubham NABAIL No. 7985 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad