Anticipatory bail granted for Section 106(1) BNS where electrocution death is prima facie accidental.

The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest for offences under Section 106(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant illegally drew an unauthorized 300-meter electricity extension from a third party’s bore connection using damaged wires.

A victim, Virendra Sahu, allegedly came into contact with a live wire and died of electrocution.

The applicant contended that he had applied for a regular connection, paid the requisite fees to the Electricity Department, and the connection was legally installed by departmental employees.

He further argued that the wire damage was caused by monkeys and the death was purely accidental.

A previous bail application was disposed of with liberty to refile due to typographical errors regarding the statutory sections.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the allegations of negligence and unauthorized electricity usage.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest (anticipatory bail).

Section 106(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding causing death by negligence.

Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which penalize the theft of electricity and interference with electrical works respectively.

The Court examined the case diary and the submissions of both parties to determine if a prima facie case of criminal negligence or intentional illegality existed.

It observed that the incident appeared to be accidental in nature.

The Court noted that the applicant had produced evidence of applying for a regular electricity connection and making payments to the department, which contradicted the prosecution's claim of an unauthorized connection.

Finding no specific material to establish that the applicant acted with "intentional or deliberate" negligence, and noting the lack of evidence regarding unauthorized drawing of power, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses, (b) cooperation with the trial process, (c) regular appearance before the trial court, (d) verification of Aadhaar credentials, and (e) refraining from committing similar future offences.