HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7566 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 482 B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of the investigation. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Ram Charan Patel, who is father of the deceased got a first information report lodged on 10.08.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 105 B.N.S. alleging inter-alia that on 09.08.2025, his daughter aged about 13 years was grazing the goats. About 300 meters from the complainant's house, Rama Shankar Maurya, to protect his crops, fenced his field with an electric wire. F.I.R. also alleges that Rama Shankar Maurya had also installed a battery in the house of Jokhu (present applicant) for supplying a current in the fence, which only gives a shock. The applicant, by a mistake, connected the fence with an electric wire having a current of flow 440 volts through the entire wire. The applicant's daughter came into contact with the said wire and died on 09.08.2025. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Shekhar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jokhu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) has been falsely implicated in this case as he had given electric supply from his house, whereas, he has no concern with the agricultural field of Uma Shankar Maurya. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged after delay of one day without any plausible explanation. The present applicant is an old citizen aged about 60 years, hence, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has an apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation. 5-Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. on 10.09.2025 has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that as per the prosecution case, electric current was illegally supplied from the house of the applicant, in which 440 volts of current was running, which is an unnatural conduct of the accused. 6-Object of Section 482 B.N.S.S. is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not 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 applicant 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. 7-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 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 NABAIL No. 7566 of 2025 2 section 482 B.N.S.S. is made out in favour of applicant. 8-Accordingly this application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is rejected. 9-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 7, 2025 Saurabh NABAIL No. 7566 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad