Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Vijaypal Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station- Chola, District- Bulandshahr.

3. The surroundings of the field of the accused Rajpal Singh were surrounded by electric wire and applicant Vijay Pal had made an illegal connection of the said wire with the L.T. line and current was running in the said wire and when it was touched by the deceased on 17.3.2025 it resulted into his death. FIR was lodged on 21.3.2025 and investigation started and during investigation the matter was converted into Section 105 BNS in place of Section 106 BNS. Investigation for the aforesaid offence is still going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the case in hand may be classified for the offence under Section 106 BNS maximum but the police in an illegal manner converted the matter into Section 105 BNS. It is also submitted that initially FIR was lodged under Section 106 BNS which was 2 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 a bailable offence and the accused applicant was granted bail by the learned trial Court but subsequently it was converted arbitrarily by the police. It is also submitted that the present accused applicant is not guilty for the alleged offence. FIR of this case was lodged belatedly after 4 days of the incident without any plausible explanation for the same. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that he had absolutely no intention or even knowledge that the death of the deceased may be caused. It is further submitted that after getting bail under Section 106 BNS by the learned Magistrate Court he did not misuse the said bail and the investigation in the matter is going on. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that it is a case of illegal electric connection which took life of an innocent person. It is also submitted that the present accused applicant was very well knowing the consequence of surrounding the field by electric wire and also to take illegal connection from the LT line. It is also submitted that the police converted the matter into the offence Section 105 BNS during investigation after finding sufficient evidence for the same.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not 3 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. It is lastly submitted co-accused Rajpal Singh granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 8.12.2025 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 10000 of 2025.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case the fact that co-accused Rajpal Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 8.12.2025 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 10000 of 2025, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) BNSS before the competent Court.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House 4 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. December 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Vijaypal Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station- Chola, District- Bulandshahr.

3. The surroundings of the field of the accused Rajpal Singh were surrounded by electric wire and applicant Vijay Pal had made an illegal connection of the said wire with the L.T. line and current was running in the said wire and when it was touched by the deceased on 17.3.2025 it resulted into his death. FIR was lodged on 21.3.2025 and investigation started and during investigation the matter was converted into Section 105 BNS in place of Section 106 BNS. Investigation for the aforesaid offence is still going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the case in hand may be classified for the offence under Section 106 BNS maximum but the police in an illegal manner converted the matter into Section 105 BNS. It is also submitted that initially FIR was lodged under Section 106 BNS which was 2 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 a bailable offence and the accused applicant was granted bail by the learned trial Court but subsequently it was converted arbitrarily by the police. It is also submitted that the present accused applicant is not guilty for the alleged offence. FIR of this case was lodged belatedly after 4 days of the incident without any plausible explanation for the same. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that he had absolutely no intention or even knowledge that the death of the deceased may be caused. It is further submitted that after getting bail under Section 106 BNS by the learned Magistrate Court he did not misuse the said bail and the investigation in the matter is going on. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that it is a case of illegal electric connection which took life of an innocent person. It is also submitted that the present accused applicant was very well knowing the consequence of surrounding the field by electric wire and also to take illegal connection from the LT line. It is also submitted that the police converted the matter into the offence Section 105 BNS during investigation after finding sufficient evidence for the same.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not 3 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. It is lastly submitted co-accused Rajpal Singh granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 8.12.2025 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 10000 of 2025.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case the fact that co-accused Rajpal Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 8.12.2025 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 10000 of 2025, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) BNSS before the competent Court.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House 4 NABAIL No. 10053 of 2025 Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. December 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)