HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8280 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by Incharge Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-II, Kaushambi, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, police station Manjhanpur, district Kaushambi, during the pendency of the investigation. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Sadashiv, who is father of the deceased Vimla Devi, got an F.I.R. lodged on 18.08.2025 against the applicant stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Vimla Devi was solemnized with Mohan Lal about 15 years ago and she was living at her house alongwith her children but the applicant Vishok @ Ramraj, who is neighbour of her daughter, used to compel her to make physical relation with him whereby she was very much depressed and on account of said reason, on 17.08.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the incident dated Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Shankar Chaurasia, Prem Chandra Chaurasia, Prem Pushp Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishok Alias Ramraj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 17.08.2025, F.I.R. was lodged on 18.08.2025 by father of the deceased. No F.I.R. was lodged by husband of the deceased. The deceased was mother of five children. Since the deceased was being harassed by her in-laws, therefore, she has committed suicide. The allegation against the applicant is false and there is no evidence regarding involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime, therefore, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for State vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that statement of husband of the deceased was recorded, in which he has supported the prosecution case and his statement has been recorded in Parcha No. 3 of the case diary. Lastly, it is submitted that the deceased committed suicide on account of conduct of the applicant as mentioned in the F.I.R. Since allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding on merit of the case. At this stage, there is no reason for disbelieving the statements of the complainant and husband of the deceased Vimla Devi. 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. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this NABAIL No. 8280 of 2025 2 case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant 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 BNSS is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly this application under Section 482 BNSS is rejected. 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 13, 2025 Shubham NABAIL No. 8280 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad