Grant of Regular Bail on Grounds of Parity in Culpable Homicide Cases Involving Accidental Electrocution

On 12.10.2025, the deceased, Lalkumar Sahu, was electrocuted after his foot became entangled in a live wire illegally connected to an electric pole and laid around a field to kill wild boars.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Lailunga under Sections 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

The four applicants—Satyaparakash Ekka, Jashwant Minj, Shashi Lal Ekka, and Karan Chauhan—were arrested on 22.01.2026 and sought regular bail following the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The decision was predicated on the principle of parity, citing the court's earlier order in MCRC No. 1729/2026 (dated 19.02.2026), where co-accused Joseph Minj and Sonu Ekka were granted bail for the same offence.

The Court also considered the absence of previous criminal antecedents and the procedural status under Section 209 (Punishment for non-appearance) and Section 269 (Non-appearance in response to proclamation) of the BNS, as well as Sections 84 (Proclamation for person absconding) and 351 (Statement of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offence against the specific circumstances of the applicants.

It noted that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the applicants had no prior criminal record and that two other co-accused persons, allegedly involved in the same transaction, had already been enlarged on bail.

Given that the applicants had been in custody since 22.01.2026 and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court found no justification for continued incarceration, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during trial proceedings.

The Court ordered the release of all four applicants upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness testimony, (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates, (iii) appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and (iv) a warning that misuse of liberty would lead to proceedings under Section 209 BNS and Section 84 BNSS.