HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7714 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., learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant and perused the record. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 146 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, police station Mohammadabad, district Farrukhabad. As per the prosecution case in brief, the complainant, who is father of deceased, got a first information report lodged against the applicant alleging inter alia that his son was a contract lineman at Neevkarori Power House substation, was repairing the line at Balaji Cold Storage Harkampur on 18.05.2025 at 05:50 PM. Before repairing the line, the station employee-Ram Ladate (applicant) had taken shutdown from the station but he deliberately turned-on the line, whereby his son got electrocuted and died. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Since 01.09.2024, the applicant has been posted as S.S.O. at electric sub-station and there was no negligence on his part in discharge of his official duty. On 18.05.2025 at about 16:45 PM, shutdown was taken by the lineman (Ramkumar) for repairing the line, which was turned-on at 16:55 PM. At 17:55 PM, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Brajesh Kumar Solanki, G.A., Samrat Vikram Singh Ram Ladete .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) he received information that Ramkumar had climbed on pole and had fallen, please give shutdown, then the applicant immediately informed junior engineer and gave shutdown. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty. Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the light of first information report by contending that during investigation, statement of Gyanendra, who is eye-witness of the incident was recorded, in which he has stated inter alia that Ramkumar asked the applicant for a shutdown, on which he said that shut down has been done. When Ramkumar climbed double pole to connect jumper wires and as soon as he tried to connect the disconnected wires, a loud sparking and noise suddenly occurred causing Ramkumar to be electrocuted and fell down. Hence, the applicant cannot be said to be not at his fault. Since the investigation is still pending, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding on merit of the case. However, it is relevant to mention that 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 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. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned NABAIL No. 7714 of 2025 2 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 the 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 10, 2025 Shubham NABAIL No. 7714 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad