Bail granted for electrocution death caused by illegal hunting wires following charge sheet filing.

The applicants filed their first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that on October 22, 2025, the deceased, Pushwaram, died after coming into contact with a live G.I. wire spread in a forest.

The applicants and co-accused allegedly laid the wire and connected it to a transformer to hunt wild pigs.

An FIR was registered on October 28, 2025, following a seven-day delay.

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act.

The applicants have been in custody since December 27, 2025.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the filing of the charge-sheet and their period of detention.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantive charges were framed under Sections 105, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding culpable homicide and common intention, and Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act regarding illegal tapping of electricity.

The court applied the discretionary principles of bail, weighing the gravity of the offense against the completion of the investigation (filing of charge-sheet), the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting that the applicants' purported act of laying electrified wires for hunting directly resulted in a human fatality.

The Court balanced this against several procedural and personal factors: the investigation was complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicants had no prior criminal record, and they had been detained since late December 2025.

The Court further observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Given these circumstances, and without commenting on the final merits of the case, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary.

The holding was contingent on several conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments; must appear at all trial stages unless excused; and are warned that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear during proclamations will result in proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS.